16 Mys L J 92', a compromise to which some of the parties to the suit alone are parties is not necessarily invalid, though on good cause being shown by any of the other parties the court has a discretion to reject such a compromise. The courts have a discretion to set aside the decree only as against the party on whom it is found to be not binding and to hold that the compromise decree is binding on others; but this depends upon the nature of the suit and the decree passed.
Sri Venkatasubbarao J. in -- "Thiruvengada Mudaliar v. Thangavelu Mudaliar', AIR 1928 Mad 594, also refer- red to in -- '16 Mys. L. J. 92', gives some instances where it is difficult to give effect to a compromise entered into by some of the parties to the suit, and observes as follows:
"Suppose A, B and C are members of a joint family. If the compromise is entered into between A and B under which A gets a half, but as C is not a party to the compromise A gets against him only a third, it would be impossible to recognize such a compromise. Again, suppose B gives up to A under the compromise some specific valuable items of property. It would be open to C, not being a party to the compromise, to urge that he would not agree to those items being taken by A. In such a case it would be futile to ask the Court to enforce the partial compromise. Again, I may vary the illustration by supposing that B admits some items to be joint family properties and on that footing enters into a compromise with A, C who is not a party to the compromise contends that those items are his self-acquisitions. Surely no court would in such a case recognize and enforce the compromise".
It may be said that generally speaking as, observed in -- '16 Mys. L. J. 92', a suit for partition cannot be compromised by some of the parties to it alone.