JUDGMENT : RICHARDS, C.J.:— This appeal arises out of a suit in which the 1 plaintiff sued to recover money alleged to be due under a deed of compromise for three years upto 1317 fasli. It appears that one Tafazzul Husain made a will and a codicil under which the plaintiff was to stand possessed of the entire estate of the deceased, to make certain payments each year amounting to Rs. 450, for charities, repairs to the ancestral house, and other matters and to divide the surplus between the heirs of the deceased. This will led to litigation which resulted in a compromise under which it was agreed that the plaintiff should make over to the heirs certain portions of the property as representing their shares, and that each of the heirs should pay out of the profits of the property so made over to them the sum of Rs. 75 per annum towards the expenses of the repairs and other matters mentioned in the will and codicil. The plaintiff brought the present suit against the defendants claiming this Rs. 75 for three years. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was bound to expend the money himself in the first instance and then to render an account to them of this expenditure as a condition precedent to his recovering any part of the Rs. 75. 2. The plaintiff on the other hand contended that he was entitled to get Rs. 75 per annum from each of the heirs and was not bound to render any account whatever of how he had expended the money. In our opinion both of these contentions are wrong. The plaintiff was entitled to get from each of the heirs the sum of Rs. 75 per annum but having got that sum he was bound to expend it upon the purposes mentioned in the will and codicil, and he was bound to give reasonable accounts to the heirs showing that he had so spent the money. The difficulty in the present case is to make a decree which is equitable and just to both parties. If we were to give the plaintiff a decree for the three years, the money could no longer be expended upon many of the purposes mentioned in the will and codicil. The time for expending money has now gone by. The difficulty in the present case is to make a decree which is equitable and just to both parties. If we were to give the plaintiff a decree for the three years, the money could no longer be expended upon many of the purposes mentioned in the will and codicil. The time for expending money has now gone by. We think upon the true construction of the deed of compromise the rendering of an account is not a condition precedent to the payment of the money. But as already stated once the money has been paid the plaintiff is bound to spend the money upon the purposes mentioned in the will and codicil and to render a reasonable account of the expenditure. Under all the circumstances we think that the justice of the case will be met by giving the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 75 in addition to the amount allowed by the learned Judge of this Court. It will be the plaintiff's duty to spend in the following year the Rs. 75 now decreed to him upon the purposes mentioned in the will and codicil and he will be liable to account to the defendants for the expenditure of the money. We accordingly vary the decree of this Court by awarding the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 75 in addition to the amount already decreed to him. Under all the circumstances we direct that the parties abide their own costs in all courts.