JUDGMENT 1. We must take it that the finding of both the Courts below was that the plaintiffs were bound by the arrangement made by the then guardian, as it was in compromise of a doubtful right. There is no reason for importing any malafides to the guardian, who evidently acted in the best interests of the minors by getting for them 4 acres out of the estate which had been in the possession of the 1st defendant for over 12 years. It is contended that now it is found the plaintiffs were in fact entitled to the whole property the 7 acres of which the 1st defendant continued in possession must in the absence of a registered instrument conveying the land to her be delivered to the plaintiffs. This assumes that the plaintiffs ownership was never in doubt. When a state of facts is accepted as the basis of a compromise, parties cannot be afterwards allowed to say the real state of things was otherwise. Having found in favour of the compromise, it was unnecessary to decide in this case as to the ownership of the plaintiffs or the 1st defendant. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.