The judgment established that the suit was barred by limitation and that there was no alienation by Madamma of the property decreed to the plaintiff's father.

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 plaintiffs father brought O.S. No. 5 of 1876 against the father of the 1st defendant, and a compromise was entered into and a decree passed thereon by which one-third of the Kangundi Zemindari and a sum of Rs. 20,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs father. The plaintiffs father executed the decree so far as the sum of Rs. 20,000 was concerned. He also applied in execution for the one-third share of the Zemindari, but died in 1878 before division was carried out. The plaintiffs mother Madamma was brought on record as legal representative. Her right to execute the decree was contested by the first defendants father, but was upheld by the District Court and by the High Court on appeal. The 1st defendants father on the 28th October 1881 obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council and on the 30th March 1882 applied for stay of execution. While matters stood thus the parties came to an agreement and executed Exh. XLI on the 2nd July 1882. Exh. XLI sets out the above facts and goes on to say that in view of the termination of the disputes, in view of the trouble and loss that both parties had been put to, and also in view of the uncertainty of the result of the appeal to the Privy Council a settlement had been arrived at. Under the settlement the 1st defendants father was to give certain immovable properties to Madamma and to the plaintiff who was then a minor, pay Rs. 2,500 annually to Madamma and a lump sum of Rs. 57,000 to Madamma and the plaintiff. On their part Madamma, the plaintiff, and her heirs were to relinquish all their rights under the decree in O.S. No. 5 of 1876. The deed then proceeds to say in paragraph 10 that Madamma took possession of the immovable properties and received payment of the Rs. 57,000, and relinquished on her own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff all rights and interest in the decree in O.S. No. 5 of 1876 while the 1st defendants father and his heirs relinquished all their rights and interest in the matter of Madamma, the plaintiff and their heirs enjoying the properties put in Madammas possession. It was further provided that Madamma should within twenty days certify satisfaction of the decree in O.S. No. 5 of 1876, and that the 1st defendants father should withdraw his appeal to the Privy Council and his application for stay of execution. These provisions were carried out. Madamma died in 1885 and the estate was in charge of the Court of Wards till the nth March 1900. On the 15th March 1900 the plaintiff applied to be brought on record as her fathers representative, and to be allowed to execute the decree in O.S. No. 5 of 1876. The 1st defendant contended that as satisfaction had been recorded there was no subsisting decree which the plaintiff could execute. This contention was upheld by the District Court and the High Court