JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - The Petitioner asks us, under sec. 206 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to amend the decree in the suit, passed so far back as the 12th September 1884, so as to bring it into conformity with the judgment. There was litigation between the Respondent and the Petitioner's late husband, who was his brother. 2. On the 30th November 1882 the District Judge of Gaya made a decree virtually in favour of the Respondent. 3. The Petitioner's late husband appealed to this Court. 4. The parties compromised the suit, and a consent decree was passed on the 12th September 1884. The judgment was as follows : "Let a decree be entered up in terms of the written petition of compromise" * * * 5. One of the conditions of the said tasfianama and ekrarnama was : "Further it has been agreed upon between us that if one of us two have no male issue and other have only one male issue, then the (sonless brother) shall not adopt any one when the other brother or brother's male issue is existing." 6. The said passage was entered in the decree as follows: "And it is further ordered and decreed in terms of the said petition and deeds of compromise, that so long as either the Plaintiff or the Defendant is alive, or in the event of one of them not having and the other having a son so long as such son is alive, neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant shall be entitled to adopt any other person as son or heir to himself, but the Plaintiff and the Defendant so living, and after him such son as aforesaid, will be entitled to be heir to succeed to the said Raj." 7. It is objected by the Petitioner that the passage "but the Plaintiff" down to "Raj" was erroneously and by inadvertence inserted in the decree, that it is in conformity with the judgment, and that the decree ought consequently to be amended by inserting in it the actual words of the tasfianama which I have quoted. 8. It is objected by the Petitioner that the passage "but the Plaintiff" down to "Raj" was erroneously and by inadvertence inserted in the decree, that it is in conformity with the judgment, and that the decree ought consequently to be amended by inserting in it the actual words of the tasfianama which I have quoted. 8. The Respondent contends that the words in the decree as it stands were intentionally inserted, because the words in the tasfianama were ambiguous; that the Petitioner's late husband took copies of the decree, which he thinks is proved; that the decree as drawn up was signed by the vakils of both parties, which is undoubted; that they assented to these words being inserted; and that, as it stands, and as it has stood for more than 18 years, unchallenged, it represents the true decree to which the parties consented. 9. The Petitioner's late husband died in December 1902, and she claims the property, the subject-matter of the above suit, for life under his Will. She cannot successfully assert that claim if the decree stands as drawn and entered. 10. The Respondent in an affidavit states the circumstances under which the compromise was entered into, and says he understood the ambiguous passage of the tasfianama in the way in which it is embodied in the decree. The decree, as now drawn, was undoubtedly shown to and approved by the vakils of either side, and was never objected to by the Petitioner's late husband during 18 years. On two separate occasions he took certified copies of the decree. It has been acted upon by both parties since its date. There is evidence, too, to show that the Petitioner's late husband has from time to time made declarations which are only consistent with the decree as it now stands. But I do not attach much importance to this. I am not satisfied that the judgment here is such a judgment as is contemplated by sec. 206 of the Code : There was no expression of judicial opinion upon the merits of the case. 11. But be that as it may, I am of opinion that, under the circumstance, the decree expresses the real intention of the parties. I am not satisfied that the judgment here is such a judgment as is contemplated by sec. 206 of the Code : There was no expression of judicial opinion upon the merits of the case. 11. But be that as it may, I am of opinion that, under the circumstance, the decree expresses the real intention of the parties. It was all done by consent and I have no doubt that the parties felt that the passage in the tasfianama, which I have quoted, was ambiguous, and they had it made clear by the decree itself, to which all parties consented in the most definite way, and to which no objection has been taken for 18 years. It is absurd to suppose that words of such importance could have been accidentally overlooked, or inserted by mistaken : in my opinion they were inserted by design, to give expression to the true intention of the compromising parties. 12. The rule is discharged with costs. 7 gold mohurs. Stevens, J. 13. I agree. I think it is impossible to entertain any reasonable doubt that the words which the Petitioner now seeks to have expunged from the decree were inserted in it deliberately with the knowledge and consent of both parties. I fail to understand what was the object of the stipulation as to adoption if it was not to settle the succession to the estate of whichever of the brothers should predecease the other in the manner in which it has been clearly and unequivocally settled by the words in question. Geidt, J. I also agree.