Judgement

Consolidated appeals from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court (April 10, 1916) reversing two judgments and decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput.

Two suits were brought by the respective respondents against the appellant, each claiming specific performance of an agreement to convey certain immovable property. The circumstances giving rise to the suits, and the effect of the judgments below appear from the judgment of their Lordships.

1920. Feb. 2. Dube for the appellant. The suits were barred by s. 66, sub-s. 1; they were brought on the ground that the purchase was "made on behalf of the plaintiffs," within the meaning of that section Kishan Lal v. Garuruddhwaja Prasad Singh (( 1899) I. L. R. 21 A. 238.) ; Ganga Baksh v. Rudar Singh (( 1900) I. L. R. 22 A. 434.) ; Suraj Narain v. Ratan Lal. (( 1917) L. R. 44 I. A. 201, 211.) There is no valid distinction between a suit brought upon the ground that the property was bought on behalf of the plaintiff, and one based on an agreement that the purchaser shall convey to the plaintiff.

2 Law. Rep. 47 Ind. App. 108 ( 1919- 1920) Ramathai Vadivelu Mudaliar V. Peria Manicka Mudaliar

The agreement gives rise to no in