Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner (June 27, 1913), reversing a decree of the District Judge of Amraoti which affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge.

The facts appear from the judgment of their Lordships.

1919. Feb. 14, 17. De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for the appellants. There was no ground within s. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, upon which the second appeal could be maintained Durga Choudhrain v. Jawahir Singh (( 1890) L. R. 17 I. A. 122.) ; Nafar Chandra Pal v. Shukur. (( 1918) L.

R. 45 I. A. 183.) The case depended entirely upon the facts.

[Viscount Haldane. Why had not the respondents the rights of mortgagors ?]

The transaction was rightly considered by all the Courts in India to be a sale with a right to repurchase, and not a mortgage Bhagwan Sahai v. Bhagwan Din (( 1890) L. R, 17 I. A. 98.); Balkishen Das v. Legge (( 1899) L. R. 27 I. A. 58.) ; Jhanda Singh v. Wahid-ud-din. (( 1916) L.

R. 43 I. A. 284.)

Sir William Garth for the respondents. There was no evidence to support the finding of fraud arrived at by the trial judge and upon the first appeal. The real question had not been considered in either of the l