Somayya, J.

1. The plaintiffs who are the appellants in this second appeal filed the suit for a declaration that certain alienations of the properties of their maternal grandfather are not binding on them after the death of their mother who was impleaded as the second defendant. The suit was dismissed by both the lower Courts but on different grounds.

2. The defendant raised two defences; one was that as a" result of a certain compromise, the second defendant became the absolute owner and the other was that the suit was barred by limitation.

3. The trial Court holding that the compromise conferred an absolute right on the second defendant dismissed the suit on that ground. The appellate Court held that under the compromise the second defendant did not get an absolute interest; but upheld the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation.

4. The plaintiffs appeal and urge that the suit is not barred and the respondents urge that the compromise validly conferred an absolute right on the second defendant. Hence both the questions have to be decided in this second appeal. On the first question I agree with the Subordinate Judge that the compromise does not confer an absolute ri