Lord Atkin:-

This is an appeal from the Supreme Court of Palestine sitting as a Court of appeal who set aside a judgment of the District Court of Jaffa in favour of the appellants, the plaintiffs in the suit, for £2500 for breach of contract. The hearing in the District Court was the result of a decision of this Board on appeal in the same case, who after judgments in the two Courts in Palestine ultimately in favour of the plaintiffs remitted the case for a further and fuller hearing. The dispute between the parties arises out of a contract in writing dated 12th November 1929, under which the appellants agreed to sell to the respondent certain land in the district of Jaffa. The purchase price was to be paid as to £200 on the signing of the agreement, when the purchasers were to be let into possession, and the balance by instalments. There was a date fixed for completion and there were various stipulations by either party, as to payment of taxes, survey of the land, proof of registration and the like. The agreement was subsequently varied by correspondence as to the date of the subsequent payments with an express stipulation that the remaining stipulations of the agreement remained in force. The purchasers paid the initial £200 on signature and went into possession; but it does not appear that they have made any further payment. There was in the agreement clause 8:

The second party (the purchaser) shall pay to the first party £2500 as agreed and liquidated damages without the necessity of notice if he commits a breach of all or part of his undertaking under this agreement.

There was a similar stipulation by the vendor in the event of any breach on his part. By the varied agreement the purchaser was to pay £400 by the end of February 1931. On 2nd March 1931, the vendors gave the purchasers written notice to pay the £400 within three days, and on 25th July 1932, delivered their statement of claim in the present action which averred the contract, averred two breaches in respect of the non-payment of taxes, and the non-payment of £400, and claimed £2500 as the agreed damages. The District Court dismissed the action on the ground that the claim as to damages did not apply to the contract as varied. This was obviously wrong and in effect the Supreme Court so held, and treating this as the only issue gave judgment for the plaintiffs. On appeal to the Privy Council, this Board affirmed the opinion of the Supreme Court so far as it went; but as it was apparent that other points raised by the purchasers had not been disposed of, remitted the case for further hearing. In their judgment attention was called to the provisions of S. 46 of the Palestine Order in Council, 1922, and to the introduction into the jurisprudence of Palestine of the provisions of the rules of the English common law and equity as there provided. It is plain that their Lordships studiously refrained from expressing any opinion as to the effect of this clause upon the issues in this action, and in this respect it would appear that one of the Judges of the Supreme Court was under a misapprehension.

The questions that remained for consideration on the new trial, and have now been decided by the Supreme Court, arise out of the provisions of Arts. 111 and 112 of the Ottoman Code of Civil Procedure. Unfortunately, disputes have arisen in this and other cases as to the correct translation of this Code which is in Turkish. Fortunately in the present case we have translations into Arabic by two of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court who were members of the appeal Court, and their Lordships are able to approach this part of the case with some confidence that the English translation of the Arabic by the court interpreter conveys the true text. There were some slight verbal differences in the Arabic translations which did not affect the substance, and for the purpose of this decision their Lordships adopt the rendering of the Senior Judge, Khaldi J.

Article 111. If it is pointed o