Judgment :- 1. The 4th defendant who is the karnavan of a family called 'Koovakkara Matom' which will here-in-after be referred to as 'the Matom' appeals against the judgment and decree of the District Judge dated 12th Kumbhom 1122 in O.S. 71 of 1114, District Court of Trivandrum. The State of Travancore-Cochin in whose favour the decree was passed are the only respondent in this appeal. 2. The Matom owns considerable larded property. This case concerns properties situate in the Neyyattinkara Taluk. Thiruppuvarom (see Travancore Land Revenue Manual, Vol. III, Part I, Chap. 12, page 515, Travancore State Manual Vol. III, page 221,16 T. L. R. 172 and 22 T. L R.1 for the meaning of this expression) was payable to the Matom in respect of some of its lands in this taluk. The Land Revenue Settlement, which was started in that area in about the year 1077 and completed in about the year 1083, omitted to enter this liability. The registry holder had therefore not to and did not pay this due. 3. The Matom entered into an Udampadi in Makaram 1101 (Ex. R) with Kesava Pillai the 3rd defendant, authorising him to demand and recover from the State the aforesaid Thiruppuvarom, agreeing to remunerate him by a division of the sum realised equally between himself and the Matom. Pursuant to this authority, Kesava Pillai on 19-8-1101 filed a petition before the Tahsildar of the taluk (Ex. A) accompanied by a list of properties (Ex. B) claiming Thiruppuvarom in respect of 290 items of land. On even date he issued a notice of suit to the State under section 65 of the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure (corresponding to Section 80 of the Indian Code) demanding payment of the aforesaid Thiruppuvarom and intimating that should the matter be not closed within two months next after receipt of the notice, a suit for the recovery of the amount claimed would be filed against the State. On receipt of this notice the State investigated the claim through the Tahsildar. On a preliminary enquiry the claim was discovered to be well-founded to a large but not to the full extent. (See Exs. P. and Q. At this stage the claimant is seen to have filed a statement (Ext. D) giving up that part of the claim which on the Tahsildar's enquiry was found against. On a preliminary enquiry the claim was discovered to be well-founded to a large but not to the full extent. (See Exs. P. and Q. At this stage the claimant is seen to have filed a statement (Ext. D) giving up that part of the claim which on the Tahsildar's enquiry was found against. The statement shows further that the rate of computation of paddy into money was reduced from 10 to 7 fanams per para. Early orders on this basis are seen solicited. Accordingly the Government passed orders (Ext. E) conceding the Thiruppuvarom to the extent found by the Tahsildar payable at the reduced rate of commutation but without interest which had also been claimed. An amount of Rs. 6,315 -26-6 cash was accordingly paid to the 3rd defendant on behalf of the Matom on 18-6-1102 and a receipt obtained (Ex. F). The suit was for recovering back a part of the aforesaid sum on the ground that a mistake was committed in the earlier enquiry which was discovered on a subsequent enquiry made by the State which later enquiry revealed that the claim to the extent of Rs. 5,495-22-7 cash was not really due. This amount was therefore sought to be recovered as payment made under a mistake. 4. The Matom contended, inter alia, that it was as a result of a compromise, that is a bargain of give and take for the purpose of avoiding litigation which was thereby avoided, that the amount was paid and received, and that therefore the State was estopped from claiming the money back. Issues 10 and 18 were settled by the court below upon this plea. The learned judge disposed of these issues in paragraph 25 of his judgment which reads thus: "25, Issues 10 & 18: It was not shown how the plaintiff was estopped from claiming reimbursement of money wrongly paid. I find the issues against the defendant." 5. On a consideration of the plaintiffs version of mistake the learned judge found that case was made out to the extent of Rs. 4,2215-7 cash. The suit was therefore decreed to that extent and dismissed as regards the rest of the claim. There is a memorandum of cross objections filed regarding the portion disallowed. 6. On a consideration of the plaintiffs version of mistake the learned judge found that case was made out to the extent of Rs. 4,2215-7 cash. The suit was therefore decreed to that extent and dismissed as regards the rest of the claim. There is a memorandum of cross objections filed regarding the portion disallowed. 6. We heard learned counsel on both sides on issues 10 and 18 first and deferred the rest of the hearing for, if upon those issues, pur opinion be against the respondents, then no further hearing of the case would be necessary. 7. Having bestowed our anxious consideration upon the matter we have reached the conclusion that the payment in this case was made as a result of a compromise entered into between the parties for the purpose of avoiding the threatened suit which was thereby in fact avoided. Exs. A, B, C, D, E, P and Q are the relevant records in this connection and they have to be read together, but before proceeding to consider their contents and import, it is necessary to note that the plea raised by the Matom in the written statement as regards the amicable adjustment of the disputed claim was not controverted by the State by filing a replication. The documents have to be viewed against this background. Another remark that has to be made is that issue 10 is not happily worded as the word 'wrongly' is out of place in the context. Now, coming to the documents, it is seen that in the claim for Thiruppuvarom over 290 items of property, the bulk of which was due in paddy, price of paddy was claimed at 10 fanams per para. Besides the petition (Ex. A) to the Tahsildar, there was a notice of suit issued to the Dewan. The Matom was not therefore asking for any kindness or mercy. The two months' time under the notice was availed of for the purpose for which it was meant. The claim made was investigated, the parties met, and the claimant abandoned part of his claim and agreed to receive price of paddy at a reduced late for the purpose of getting the matter closed without delay and litigation. The concessions given by the claimant were accepted and the claim admitted in part. The claim made was investigated, the parties met, and the claimant abandoned part of his claim and agreed to receive price of paddy at a reduced late for the purpose of getting the matter closed without delay and litigation. The concessions given by the claimant were accepted and the claim admitted in part. Though there was an investigation of the claim made, it cannot be said that it was based solely upon the result of that investigation that the matter was closed. There was nothing compelling the claimant to accept the conclusions readied by the Tahsildar on enquiry. But for the concessions made by the claimant reducing the quantum of the claim as aforesaid, there would, in all likelihood, have been a further enquiry by a superior officer. A closure of the matter speedily and without litigation appears to have been in the minds of both the concerned parties and this object was achieved. In Huddersfield Banking Company, Limited v. Henry Lister & Son, Limited (1895) (2) Chancery Division 273), Lindley, L. J. stated (at p. 282) as follows: "Now I pass to another point, which was made by Mr. Sheldon. He said this was a compromise. He says there were thirty-five of these looms, and the real arrangement was not that the thirty-three should be sold upon the common mistake I have alluded to, but that there was a give-and-take arrangement that, if Lister & Son gave the bark the two which were "screwed down", Lister & Son were to have the remaining thirty-three. If that had been the true arrangement, the aspect of the transaction would have been totally different." Key, L.J.stated at page 285 thus: "But then it was argued that this was a compromise. Now, what constitutes a compromise? A compromise takes place when there is a question of doubt and the parties agree rot to try it out, but to settle it between themselves by a give-and-take arrangement. I quite agree that if this was a case of that kind it would be extremely difficult to interfere with the order." The order in that case was based upon an agreement which was contended to have been the result of a mistake. I quite agree that if this was a case of that kind it would be extremely difficult to interfere with the order." The order in that case was based upon an agreement which was contended to have been the result of a mistake. In Shiba Prasad Singh v. Srish Chandra (A.I.R. 1949 P. C. 297) the Judicial Committee, while holding that relief could be given on the ground of a mistake, even if the mistake was one of law under which payment of money was made, stated thus: "It may be well to add that their Lordships' judgment does not imply that every sum paid under mistake is recoverable no matter what the circumstances may be. There may in a particular case be circumstances which disentitle a plaintiff by estoppel or otherwise." [p. 302]. In a case where the matter is adjusted as a result of a compromise the parties agree not to try out their titles and rights, but acknowledge and define them for the purpose of the compromise with a view to avoid a determination of their true nature. Even if one or both the parties may have teen under a mistake in respect of the title as is subsequently discovered, that circumstance will not detract from the finality and binding character of the compromise. When a matter is compromised, it binds the parties and mistake has no place therein. The only mistake that is relied upon in this case is that the result of the enquiry made by the Tahsildar originally is not what it should have been. Even the subsequent enquiry which is the basis of the plaintiff's claim is seen by the court below not to have yielded accurate results. 8. In our judgment the claim in this case was closed as a result of the compromise of the disputed claim, entered into between the parties and the plaintiff is estopped from going behind that compromise and claiming any relief on the basis of any alleged mistake. The plaintiff is therefore not entitled to any relief in this suit. The appeal should, therefore, be allowed and the memorandum of cross objections dismissed. 9. We must, before closing this judgment, state that the view that we take as regards the compromise is limited to the claim made for arrears of Thiruppuvaram until the date of Ext. A, that is 19-8-1101. The appeal should, therefore, be allowed and the memorandum of cross objections dismissed. 9. We must, before closing this judgment, state that the view that we take as regards the compromise is limited to the claim made for arrears of Thiruppuvaram until the date of Ext. A, that is 19-8-1101. The compromise related only to that period and will not have any relevance or bearing upon any subsequent period. The result will be that in respect of the period subsequent to 19-8-1101 which is not covered by the payment made, the fact that the claim for the period prior to 19-8-1101 was adjusted by compromise, will not enable the Matom to get Thiruppuvaram for the future in the manner in which the prior claim was adjusted nor will it stand in the way of the. State disputing their liability to pay Thiruppuvaram for any subsequent period. Nor will the concession made by the Matom in Ext. D as regards the items over which the claim for Thiruppuvarm was given up, stand in the way of the Matom claiming Thiruppuvaram in respect of those or any other item. The parties are at large in respect of claims for Thiruppuvaram for the period subsequent to 19-8-1101. 10. As regards costs, we consider that the question of compromise on which the appellant succeeds does not appear to have been properly placed before the Court below, which would have accepted the plea had it been so placed. Under the circumstances we consider it proper to direct that both parties pay themselves their respective costs here and in the court below. Allowed.