JUDGMENT Derbyshire, C.J. - There was a partition suit proceeding before the Court. Two of the parties at first, and then the third and the remaining party eventually, agreed to submit the matter to the arbitration of certain gentlemen who are Amins. The Amins visited the property to be partitioned and apparently so did all the parties. When the Amins had decided what they were going to do, the parties joined together with the Amins and certain local gentlemen and executed a document by which they agreed that the parties shall be bound to compromise the aforesaid partition suit upon certain terms which were annexed to the document which was signed by the parties. It appears to me that that document is not an award but resembles an agreement to compromise. That being so, the decisions cited in the cases of The Dekari Tea Co., Ltd. v. The India General Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. (1) 25 C.W.N. 127 (1920) and Rohini Kant a Bhattacharjee v. Rajani Kanta Bhattacharjee (2) 38 C.W.N. 648 (1934) do not apply. 2. It is accordingly a question of fact whether the document represents a valid and genuine compromise between the parties. If that is so, then it may be recorded like any other compromise. The learned Munsif was of the opinion that it was an award and refused to record it under the authority of the cases I have mentioned. The Subordinate Judge, on the other hand, came to the conclusion that it was not an award but a document in the nature of a compromise. He remitted the matter to the Munsif for him to determine whether it was a valid or genuine compromise and, if so, whether it should be recorded under Or. 23, r. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, the learned Subordinate Judge was right. 3. For those reasons this Rule must be discharged with costs - the hearing-fee being assessed at two gold mohurs. Let the affidavits filed in Court today be kept on the record. Mukherjea, J. I agree.