1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition brought by a Hindu widow against the sons and grandsons of her deceased husband's brother. There was a compromise decree between the parties in a previous suit and the plaintiff agreed by that compromise that as long as she lived she would hold and enjoy ejmali possession of certain properties mentioned in the decree jointly living with the defendants in the same mess as before and also that she would not be competent to make a gift or sell the properties or transfer the same.
2. The learned District Judge has held that it was on the understanding that the plaintiff would not ask for partition in her life-time that the suit was compromised by the defendants. Now, an agreement between the members of a Hindu family not to come to a partition might be binding upon themselves. See Mayne's Hindu Law, 7th Edition, page 687; Krishnendra Nath v. Debendra Nath 12 C.W.N. 793. We agree with the District Judge in holding that by the compromise the plaintiff bound herself to enjoy ejmali possession of the property with the defendants and not to ask for partition. No equitable ground has been made out by her for not giving effect to the agreement. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. We direct that each party do bear its own costs in all the Courts.