Judgement Consolidated Appeals (Nos. i and 2 of 1937) from two decrees of the High Court (July 3, 1934) reversing two decrees of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Lyallpur (April 28, 1929). One Sham Singh, a pensioner, was granted by Government certain abadkar rights in four squares of land in the district of Lyallpur. He died on October 22, 1901, leaving him surviving a widow, Mussammat Jiwani. The land was mutated in her favour, and subsequently, in 1910 or 1911, she acquired the proprietary rights in the land by payment of the necessary sum to Government. She died on August 17, 1920, leaving her surviving two illegitimate daughters, Sant Kaur and Basant Kaur, the present respondents. After the death of Mussammat Jiwani one Gujar Singh, who was the son of her husbands paternal uncle, and Partap Singh and Kartar Singh, who were the sons of Gujar Singhs deceased brother, alleged that the daughters, being illegitimate, had no right to the property, which they (the three collaterals) claimed as heirs of the last male holder. By a compromise, incorporated in a deed of settlement, dated April 22, 1921, the property was divided as follows a life interest in one square was allotted to each of the daughters, and the remaining two squares were allotted to the collaterals. At that time the younger of the daughters was admittedly a minor, and the main question in these appeals, which arose out of actions brought to determine the succession to the property, was whether the deed of settlement was binding on the daughters. The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The Senior Subordinate Judge held that the deed of settlement was binding on the daughters. The High Court (Hilton and Din Muhammad JJ.) held that it was not. 1938. March 8. Robert Ritson for the appellants. When Sham Singh died his widow got a widows estate, and if out of the income of the property she paid the purchase-money for the proprietary rights, although the whole estate gets the benefit of those rights, yet her estate remains a widows estate, and she did not become a full owner. On her death the appellants claimed to be entitled to the four squares of land as heirs of Sham Singh. The respondents claimed as heirs of their mother they contended that the deed of settlement was invalid and not binding on them. On her death the appellants claimed to be entitled to the four squares of land as heirs of Sham Singh. The respondents claimed as heirs of their mother they contended that the deed of settlement was invalid and not binding on them. The High Court held that the respondents were entitled to the whole property as heirs of their mother. It is submitted that the compromise is a valid one. If it is held to be invalid, the property cannot belong to the heirs of Sham Singh. There is no evidence that the elder daughter was a minor she has not been proved to be one, and the onus is upon her to prove it. If she is a major she executed the document s. 11 of the Indian Contract Act, IX. of 1872 Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh. (( 1928) I. L. R. 9 Lah. 701.) There is not sufficient ground for upsetting this family arrangement, which has been in force for a number of years. There are authorities showing that a minor not a party to a compromise of family arrangement can be bound by it. A family arrangement must be judged in a totally different way from a contract. The compromise deed was valid Dwarka Das v. Krishan Kishore. (( 1921) I. L. R. 2 Lah. 114.) J. M. Parikh for the respondents, was not called upon to argue. April 1. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR SHADI LAL. On August 17, 1920, Mussammat Jiwani, the widow of one Sham Singh, died, leaving her surviving two illegitimate daughters, Sant Kaur and Basant Kaur. Mussammat Jiwani was the proprietor of four squares of land in the district of Lyallpur, in the province of the Punjab. This land was originally in the occupation of her husband as a tenant of Government, but he died in October, 1901, without acquiring the proprietary rights by paying the price thereof in compliance with the rules applicable to the acquisition of ownership by a tenant of Government. It was only after his death that Mussammat Jiwani paid the price and became the owner of the land in August, 1910. The question of succession to the land arose shortly after her death. It was only after his death that Mussammat Jiwani paid the price and became the owner of the land in August, 1910. The question of succession to the land arose shortly after her death. In the course of the proceedings taken by the Revenue Officer for the mutation of names in respect of the estate, the right of the daughters to inherit it on the death of their mother was denied by Sham Singhs collaterals, who laid claim to the whole of the property as his heirs. There were three collaterals—namely, Gujar Singh, the son of Sham Singhs paternal uncle, and Partap Singh and Kartar Singh, the sons of Gujar Singhs brother, Sarmukh Singh. They claimed to exclude the daughters from the inheritance, but the dispute was settled between them and the daughters by a compromise, the terms of which were embodied in a deed executed on April 22, 1921. The estate was divided among all the claimants, one square was allotted to each of the daughters, and the remaining two squares were awarded to the collaterals. It was, however, provided that the girls would have only a life interest in the land assigned to them, without any right of alienation, and that on the death of each, her square would devolve upon the collaterals, It is common ground that the younger girl, Basant Kaur, was a minor at that time, and was represented by Gujar Singh, who purported to act as her guardian in consenting to the distribution of the land. The Revenue Officer, who was dealing with the mutation proceedings, directed that the land should be entered in the revenue record in favour of the various parties in accordance with the settlement arrived at by them. On August 15, 1927, Gujar Singh made a gift of his square to the two girls, and executed a deed of gift in their favour. This deed was followed by another document, which he executed on August 16, 1927, by which he relinquished in their favour his right to succeed to their land on their deaths. Thereupon, Partap Singh and Kartar Singh brought, on October 8, 1927, an action against the girls and Gujar Singh for a declaration that neither the deed of gift nor the deed of relinquishment should affect their reversionary interest in the property. Thereupon, Partap Singh and Kartar Singh brought, on October 8, 1927, an action against the girls and Gujar Singh for a declaration that neither the deed of gift nor the deed of relinquishment should affect their reversionary interest in the property. On October 31, 1927, the girls instituted a suit for possession of the square which had been allotted to Partap Singh and Kartar Singh, and claimed that they (the girls) were entitled to succeed to the whole of the estate belonging to their mother, and that they were not bound by the deed of settlement which was entered into during their minority. The trial judge held the deed of settlement to be binding upon the parties, and, while dismissing the girls suit for possession of one square, granted a declaratory decree in favour of Partap Singh and Kartar Singh with respect only to the deed of gift impeached by them. The girls appealed to the High Court against both the decrees in so far as they were against them, and their appeals were accepted, with the result that their suit for possession of one square was decreed against the collaterals, and the suit brought by the latter for declaration was dismissed in toto. From the judgment and the decrees of the High Court Partap Singh and Kartar Singh have brought to His Majesty in Council two appeals, which have been consolidated. The vital question which requires determination is whether the deed of settlement is binding upon the girls. As stated already, it was their mother, Mussammat Jiwani, who paid the price for the land to Government, and it was not disputed in the trial Court that she had thereby acquired the rights of ownership in the property. Indeed, it is stated by the High Court in their judgment that the learned counsel for Partap Singh and Kartar Singh conceded before them that "but for the deed of 1921, the daughters were the only "rightful heirs of Mussammat Jiwani.” Does that deed create an obstacle in the way of their right to succeed to the whole of the estate left by their mother ? Ex concesso, the younger girl, Basant Kaur, was a minor on the date of the deed of settlement, but Gujar Singh adopted the role of her guardian for entering into the contract on her behalf. Ex concesso, the younger girl, Basant Kaur, was a minor on the date of the deed of settlement, but Gujar Singh adopted the role of her guardian for entering into the contract on her behalf. It is, however, clear that he was neither appointed her guardian by any Court, nor could claim that status under the law applicable to her. He himself wanted a share in the estate, and this claim was adverse to her right to succeed, with her sister, to the whole of the estate. The rule of law is firmly established that a minor is not competent to make a contract, and as Gujar Singh had no authority to enter into a contract on her behalf, the deed of settlement must be held to be a void transaction as against her. Whether her elder sister, Sant Kaur, also was a minor at that time is a matter in controversy between the parties. The date of her birth cannot be ascertained with any reasonable certainty, but the circumstances mentioned by the High Court justify the inference that she had not attained the age of majority on the date in question. In any case, however, the elder sister would not be bound if the transaction was unenforceable as against the younger. Their Lordships, after examining the relevant material on the record, see no reason to dissent from the conclusion reached by the learned judges of the High Court. It is not suggested that Gujar Singh or any other person even purported to act on her behalf as her guardian. It is argued, however, that the transaction should be upheld because it was a family settlement. Their Lordships cannot assent to the proposition that a party can, by describing a contract as a family settlement, claim for it an exemption from the law governing the capacity of a person to make a valid contract. It is true that if a compromise has been entered into in good faith by the manager of a joint Hindu family, or by a father in such family, a minor member of the family cannot be allowed to disturb it on the ground of inequality of the benefit, unless there was fraud or some other ground which in law vitiates it. This rule proceeds upon the principle that the minor was properly represented by the father or the manager of the family, and that he was, therefore, a party to the compromise. The rule does not offend against any law governing a contract. As regards the transaction for the distribution of squares in the present case, it is not proved that there was any person who had authority, either under the law of contract or under the personal law applicable to the minors, to make the compromise on their behalf, surrendering a moiety of their inheritance to persons who were not entitled to it. Their Lordships have no hesitation in holding that the compromise invoked by the appellants cannot bind the daughters of Mussammat Jiwani. They will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that the appeals should be dismissed with costs.