Judgment :- Defendant in a suit for for money due under a promissory note Ext.A1, is the revision petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the suit was settled out of court. (See ExtXI). On the other hand, the plaintiff contends that though there was a common in ention to have the matter settled out of court, there was no such settlement as the full amount as per the settlement had not been paid by the petitioner to the respondent. 3. Accepting the case of the petitioner that the dispute had been settled out of court, the trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the appellate court reversed that judgment by the judgment under attack. 4. Ext.XI reads:- IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF KASARAGOD. O.S.No.22,/1975. Between P.Ganapathi Bhat Plaintiff and K. Shankaranarayana Bhat Defendant joint memo filed on behalf of the plaintiff & defendant It is submitted as follows:- 1. The suit is settled out of court. The same may therefore be dismissed as settled out of court. 2. The parties shall bear their respective costs. No costs therefore need be ordered. 3. One half of the court fee paid on the plaint may be refunded to the plaintiff. Sd/- Sd/ Plaintiff. Advocate for Plaintiff. Sd/ Defendant Sd/-Advocate for defendant. We the plaintiff and defendant do hereby declare that the facts stated above are all true to the best of our knowledge and belief. Kasaragod, 22-6-1976. Sd/-Plaintiff. Sd/ Defendant." It is clear from this' Joint memo' that the dispute which arose for consideration in the suit, was settled out of court. The trial court, as already noted, dismissed the suit as settled out of court. The appellate court on the other hand went into the question as to whether or not the amount as per the settlement was paid by the petitioner to the respondent. It is relevant in this context to note that the appellate court, however, was of the view that the agreement was a valid one as the same had been signed by both the plaintiff and the defendant and their respective counsel. 5. The short question thus arising for consideration is: Was the appellate court justified in reversing the judgment of the trial court based on the compromise and decreeing the suit for an amount of Rs.2,660/-with future interest at the rate of 6% on Rs.2,300/-? 6. 5. The short question thus arising for consideration is: Was the appellate court justified in reversing the judgment of the trial court based on the compromise and decreeing the suit for an amount of Rs.2,660/-with future interest at the rate of 6% on Rs.2,300/-? 6. The facts of the case indisputably attract the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. I shall now read, (leaving out unnecessary parts) the same: "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 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". What is envisaged in the Rule is an adjustment of the suit either wholly or in part and therefore in a given case if the court finds on enquiry that the suit has been wholly adjusted between the parties, then the court shall, not only pass appropriate orders recording the compromise agreement but, shall also pass a decree in accordance therewith unless it be that the agreement or compromise is not lawful. (See the decision of this court in Adimali St Paul's Yakkobaya Suriyani Church (1971 KLT 889). Under what circumstances an agreement would be held not lawful, should also be considered by the court. To call a compromise not lawful, it should be established that the compromise was one entered into in violation of a particular statute or prohibited by law, or opposed to public policy, such as an agreement for the alienation of a religious office or an agreement relating to a public trust which is detrimental to its interest, or an agreement which amounts to a breach of trust. The above illustrations are only illustrative and not exhaustive. If any such aspect is established the court would refuse to record the compromise as it will not be a lawful agreement. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in Roshan Lai v. Madan Lai, AIR 1975 S.C. 2130). 7. Having understood the law thus let us see whether the judgment under challenge is sustainable. If any such aspect is established the court would refuse to record the compromise as it will not be a lawful agreement. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in Roshan Lai v. Madan Lai, AIR 1975 S.C. 2130). 7. Having understood the law thus let us see whether the judgment under challenge is sustainable. On going through the judgment, it is clear that instead of considering the question as to whether Ext.XI is a lawful agreement or not, the lower appellate court has gone into the merits of the case which in the circumstances is unwarranted. It should in this connection be remembered that even according to the lower appellate court; the agreement is a lawful one. The lower appellate court in delivering the impugned judgment must in any event, be held to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. 8. The facts established would show that the court was bound to record the compromise and pass a decree in accordance therewith. It is relevant in this context to note that Ext.Xl embodies a complete agreement in that the suit has been wholly adjusted between the parties. 9. The judgment and decree under attack, for the reasons stated above, are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court are restored. C.R.P. is allowed. No costs.