JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the Judgment and decree dated May 25, 1968 passed in Appeal No. 80 of 1965-66 by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow arising out of Case No. 183 of 1965 under Sections 229-B/176, U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Respondent No. 1, Ram Asrey had filed a suit under Sections 229-B/176, U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act for a declaration that he was a co-Sirdar of the land in suit and for partition of his one-half share therein. The defendant-appellant, Srimati Ballo and the defendant-respondents Banwari Lal, Kalika, Chhabinath and Darshan contested the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit. During the course of the first appeal, the parties entered into certain compromise and the learned Additional Commissioner set aside the Judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit in terms of the compromise. Srimati Ballo has now come up in second appeal. 4. The grounds taken in this second appeal are, firstly, that as two of the defendants, viz., State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha had not entered into the compromise, the compromise dated January 21, 1966 was not a legal compromise under the law; secondly, that the compromise was against the provisions of the Contract Act; thirdly, that the agreement was unlawful and opposed to public policy, and finally, that the defendant-appellant Srimati Ballo having been held to be the widow of Dorey Dass, whose property was subject-matter of dispute, was entitled to the entire property to the exclusion of the plaintiff and the other defendants. 5. Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. reads as follows:- "3. Compromise of suit. - Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise (in writing) and signed by the parties, or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject matter of the suit. Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjustment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment. Explanation. - An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule." 6. Thus, the agreement or compromise to be lawful has to be in writing and signed by all the parties to the suit. It follows that a compromise which has been signed by some of the parties and not all, cannot be accepted for passing a decree by the Court in accordance with the above rule. 7. The present suit was under Sections 229-B/176, U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 229-B, the State Government and the Gaon Sabha are necessary parties to a declaratory suit. A perusal of the record shows that the so-called compromise in the Court of the Additional Commissioner has not been signed by any person on behalf of the State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha. Thus, the effect is that the suit could not be decreed in terms of the compromise which was not signed by all the parties, including the State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha. Thus, the compromise to the valid has got to be signed by the State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha as well. The learned Additional Commissioner has erred in law in accepting the compromise as final and in decreeing the suit on the basis of this compromise. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has also stated that the appellant was entitled to the entire property as the widow of Dorey Das to the exclusion of the plaintiff and the other defendants. As the first appeal has got to be remanded for decision by the Additional Commissioner, this aspect may be looked by him while deciding the appeal. At this stage I need not express my opinion on this question. 9. As a result of the above discussion, I hereby allow the second appeal and set aside the impugned order of the lower appellate court. At this stage I need not express my opinion on this question. 9. As a result of the above discussion, I hereby allow the second appeal and set aside the impugned order of the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court is directed to hear the first appeal afresh on merits and decide it in accordance with law.