JUDGMENT Ragbubar Dayal, J. - This is a second appeal against the order of learned Civil judge, Lucknow, confirming the decree of Munsif, Havali, Lucknow, dismissing the suit by the Plaintiffs Appellants for possession over certain property in villages Tikri and Subbannagar Argawan. 2. Ram Newaz Singh, grandfather of the Plaintiffs, died in 1928 leaving his son Tirbhawan Singh by his first wife and his "second wife Mst. Phoola. Rameshur Prasad Singh, Plaintiff Appellant No. 1, was alive at the time of Ram Newaz Singh's death. The other Plaintiff Appellant, Naresh Bahadur Singh, was born afterwards. 3. The family held the property in suit and some property in village Chandnapur. It has been found and there is no dispute about it that the property in suit was ancestral property. 4. Ram Nawaz Singh executed the will, Ext. A1, on 20th January, 1927. This will has been rightly held to be invalid. There is no more about this fact. This will, however provided that on the death of Ram Wewaz Singh, Tirbhawan Singh and Mst. Phoola would meet the marriage expenses of his daughters from the property in suit, that the property remaining after meeting the expenses would be divided half and half between them and that each of them would be absolute owner of such property. 5. On 5th November, 1928, Tirbhawan Singh and Mst. Phoola executed the deed Ext. A2. It expressed that Ram Newaz Singh had died a month and a half before, that he had executed the will on 20th January, 1927, and that they had distributed among themselves the movable property left by Ram Newaz Singh, It further said that dispute about immovable property continued between the two executants, that its removal was very necessary as litigation would lead to misery the destruction of property and dishonor of the family and that, therefore, they had arrived at a mutual agreement. It described the terms of the mutual agreement and then said that they were executing this partition deed to give effect to the agreement arrived at. In this deed the property in suit was made over to Mst. Phoola with absolute rights. She, however, undertook to meet the expenses of the marriages of her daughters. Tirbhawan Singh, father of the Plaintiffs Appellants, was given the remaining property. He was freed from the liability of meeting the expenses of the marriages of his step-sisters. In this deed the property in suit was made over to Mst. Phoola with absolute rights. She, however, undertook to meet the expenses of the marriages of her daughters. Tirbhawan Singh, father of the Plaintiffs Appellants, was given the remaining property. He was freed from the liability of meeting the expenses of the marriages of his step-sisters. He undertook to pay off a certain debt which was payable by Ram Newaz Singh. 6. This agreement, Ext. A2, was given effect to and was acted upon. Mst. Phoola transferred the property she obtained under the agreement to her daughters and sons-in-law, Defendants Respondents 2 to 5. 7. The Plaintiffs Appellants, sons of Tirbhawan Singh, sued for the recovery of the property which Mst. Phoola got under this deed Ext. A2. Tirbhawan Singh did not contest the suit. Mst. Phoola and her transferees contested the suit on various grounds. The trial Court held in favor of the Plaintiffs on all the contentions except the contention about Ext. A2 being a deed of family settlement binding on the Plaintiffs and about Mst. Fhoola's validly making the transfers in favor of her daughters and sons-in-law. The Plaintiffs appealed to the learned Civil Judge who also agreed with the findings of the trial Court against the Plaintiffs. 8. The main point for decision now is whether the deed Ext. A2 can be treated to be a deed of family settlement binding on the Plaintiffs. If it is binding there is no dispute that Mst. Phoola was competent to transfer the property and that the claim of the Plaintiffs is not justified. 9. It is argued for the Appellants that Tirbhawan Singh did not purport to act as manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his sons when he executed the deed, Ext. A2, he having acted as the full owner under the terms of the will executed by Ram Newaz Singh and which will has been held to be invalid. It does appear from the deed, Ext. A2, that Tirbhawan Singh at the time was not thinking of himself as the manager of the family and the property as a joint family property. He does not allege any of these facts. On the other hand, the deed refers to the will executed by Ram Newaz Singh indicating that parties were basing their rights on its terms. A2, that Tirbhawan Singh at the time was not thinking of himself as the manager of the family and the property as a joint family property. He does not allege any of these facts. On the other hand, the deed refers to the will executed by Ram Newaz Singh indicating that parties were basing their rights on its terms. At the same time it should be presumed that Tirbhawan Singh did know that the property was ancestral. It was so mentioned in the will, Ext. Al. It is not definitely mentioned in the deed. Ext. A2, that he is acting as a full owner. If both the executants claimed rights on the basis of the will alone there could have been no occasion for any dispute between them. Both were given equal rights under the will subject to their meeting the expenses of the marriages of the daughters. Disputes, if any, between them should have arisen on the occasion of meeting such expenses. It can, therefore, be presumed that the disputes between them must have arisen on account of claims based on considerations other than those arising out of the terms of the will, Ext. Al. There is nothing on the record to indicate what dispute had arisen between the two. The evidence is that dispute had arisen. 10. It is not necessary that an act of the karta of the joint family would be deemed to be such an act of his if it is expressed that he was acting as karta It depends on the circumstances of the act as to whether the act is to be taken as the act of the manager of the family or as his individual act. The deed, Ext. A2, included the entire property of the family. It could, therefore, be presumed that Tirbhawan Singh acted as the manager of the family and that any reference to himself alone is really to the members of the joint family. 11. It was held in Daulat Ram v. Mehr Chand (1888) 15 Cal. The deed, Ext. A2, included the entire property of the family. It could, therefore, be presumed that Tirbhawan Singh acted as the manager of the family and that any reference to himself alone is really to the members of the joint family. 11. It was held in Daulat Ram v. Mehr Chand (1888) 15 Cal. 70 that where the mortgage extends to the entire interest of the family and is not confined to the share of any particular member and where in the plaint the mortgagor claims not only to recover against the individual mortgagor the amount of the mortgage but asks that the debt may be satisfied out of the mortgaged property, the manager even though he alone is imp leaded, effectively represents all the members who therefore become bound by the decree. In the mortgage deed in that case the mortgagors had expressed that they were the sole proprietors and bad also made a statement that they were in ancestral possession of the property. 12. In the circumstances the facts that Ext. A2 refers to the will Ext. A1 and that Tirbhawan Singh does not express that he was acting as manager of the family do not suffice to hold that he was not acting as the manager. 13. The fact that the deed, Ext. A2, is described as a partition deed is no bar to treat the deed evincing a family settlement between Tirbhawan Singh and Mst. Phoola. The expressions in the deed itself paint to its being a deed of family settlement. It speaks of a dispute having arisen about immovable property. It takes into consideration the necessity to arrive at a settlement in order to avoid ruinous litigation and disgrace to the family. Its terms indicate that there must have been an adjustment of claims between the parties. 14. It is argued that the arrangement arrived at was not beneficial to the joint family estate as half the property was lost to it. The beneficial nature of the transaction is not to be Judged by this sole consideration. In any family settlement or compromise there is bound to be some loss to one party or the other. The gain of a settlement is that it settles the dispute. It maintains peace in the family. The beneficial nature of the transaction is not to be Judged by this sole consideration. In any family settlement or compromise there is bound to be some loss to one party or the other. The gain of a settlement is that it settles the dispute. It maintains peace in the family. It maintains the respect of the family in the eyes of others which the family may stand to lose if its disputes lead to litigation. The Courts below have found and the deed, Ext. A2, as noted before, shows that there was a dispute between the two executants. They have also found that the terms of the deed were beneficial to the family. More than half the property was saved to the family. It was freed from the burden of meeting the marriage expenses. It was freed from the burden of meeting the maintenance charges of Mst. Phoola and her daughters. According to the village custom Mst. Phoola could have remained in possession over half the property for her lifetime. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the finding of the Court below is bad or that Tirbhawan Singh did not act in a prudent manner in settling the dispute with his stepmother Mst. Phoola. 15. The case reported in Musammat Raj-Par v. Musammaf Parbati (1933) 10 O.W.N. 336 supports the view. There also the property which was dealt with in the family settlement was ancestral property. It passed under law to minor son of the deceased. The deceased had left besides his son his two widows and a step mother. He had also expressed his intention about the manner in which the property was to be dealt with. These persons agreed amongst themselves accordingly and secured necessary mutations. The agreement arrived at between the various persons was upheld in this case as a good family settlement. It is not necessary for a valid family settlement. It is not necessary for a valid family settlement that a party gaining under it should have had a good case. 16. In view of the above I agree with the finding of the Courts below that the deed, Ext. A2, is a deed of family settlement and that the Plaintiffs-Appellants are bound by it. It follows that the appeal must fail. 17. I therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.