( 1 ) QUITE an elaborate argument was addressed in what appears to me to be a simple case in which the only question for determination is whether there is any case made out for the reversal of the decree made ex parte by the court below.

( 2 ) THE real contesting parties herein are two brothers. The first plaintiff is the wife of the second plaintiff. His brother is the second defendant and the wife of the latter is the first defendant. On the strength of the deed of sale dated 12/04/1961, the first plaintiff is claiming a half share of the property covered by the deed. The terms of the deed show that the first plaintiff and first defendant have together acquired the property. There is no doubt that according to the apparent tenor of the document the two women are the co-owners. There is nothing in the deed to show that their sharers are not equal.

( 3 ) THE written statement does not impugn the validity of the sale deed. The defence is that the second plaintiff desired that the purchase should be jointly made and so the deed was taken in the joint names of the ladies. but that the consideration was 0-aid exclusively by the second defendant. The inclusion of the na