Viscount Dunedin. -

In this case an uncle and a nephew had certain proper ties. A partition suit was instituted in which, in 1901, a compromise decree was passed. By it certain properties, which will be referred to as Properties A, were allotted to the uncle, and others, referred to as Properties B, to the nephew. In 1904 another suit was 'instituted in which, in 1908, there was another com promise decree, the effect of which was simply to substitute A for B and B for A.

The present application for execution was instituted by the nephew against the uncle. He says that the properties of which under the decree of 1908 he is entitled to receive possession are not in their entirety in three respects. First, because, between 1901 and 1908, the uncle had made over a certain portion to a family doctor ; secondly, because zirat lands which he (the nephew) was entitled to have in his possession had been made over to tenants under leases, and, thirdly, because certain other lands had been let on leases not for their full value, but in respect of a sum down, which had been paid to the uncle.

The learned Judges of the High Court, differing from the learned Judge of first instance, held that the