Miller, J.

1. The preliminary objection that the suit was not on behalf of the estate fails. There is nothing in the language of the plaint to which our attention was called which rebuts the presumption arising from the nature of the relief claimed, that the suit was on behalf of the estate.

2. On the merits I have had an opportunity of reading the judgment which my learned brother has prepared, and I agree with him that the compromise does not effect an alienation by the widow of rights which she possessed, so as to make the possession of the 1st defendants father a possession derived from her. The widow gave up or relinquished her rights and interest and all claim under the decree, but I do not read that as meaning that she transferred those rights, interests and claims to the 1st defandants father, but only that she undertook to make no further claim under the decree. There is a transfer of property by him to her but none by her to him.

3. That being so I concur in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation.

Munro, J.

4. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the District Court of North Arcot in O.S. No. 9 of 1903. The plainti