JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J. 1. The decision relied upon by the lower appellate court is not in point as in that case there was a legal bar to the appointment of the next friend, that is, her appointment was in direct violation of the terms of section 457 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no such legal bar in the present case. It must be assumed that the court satisfied itself that Abdul Karim had no interest in the matter in question in the suit adverse to that of the minors, and that he was a fit person to be appointed guardian ad-litem. This being so, I am of opinion that the plaintiffs could only succeed in their suit by proving the allegations in the plaint, viz. that there was fraud or collusion on the part of their guardian, and that the compromise entered into by him was prejudicial to their interest. The court of first instance held that the evidence did not prove that the decree which the plaintiff in this case seek to set aside, was fraudulent or collusive. The learned Subordinate Judge says that the compromise upon which the decree was passed, was not a bona fide transaction, but he gives no reasons and refers to no evidence in support of that conclusion. In my opinion it is necessary for a proper decision of this case to have a distinct finding on the following issues: (1) Had the guardian ad-litem any interest in matters in question in the suit which ended in the decree of the 13th January, 1898, adverse to the interest of the minors? (2) Was the said decree, dated 13th January, 1898, fraudulent or collusive? (3) Was the compromise entered into by the guardian ad-litem prejudicial to the interests of the minors? 2. The Court will try the above issues, taking such additional evidence as may be necessary. 3. In trying them, the lower, Court will bear in mind that the onus lies on the plaintiffs. On receipt of the findings, ten days will be allowed for objections.