JUDGMENT

Coxe, J. - The facts of the case, according to the judgments of the Courts below, seem to be that in December the defendant No. 2 agreed to sell the property in gait to the defendant No. 1 and pat him in possession of it. He did not, however, sell the property to him. Two months later, he executed a conveyance in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff at that time being well aware of the contract with the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff sued for recovery of possession and the learned Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff's conveyance was not a valid document and that the plaintiff had not acquired any valid right to the property on the strength of it.

2. I find it very difficult to understand precisely what the learned Subordinate Judge thought that the nature of the transaction in favour of the plaintiff really was. He apparently accepted the fact that the sum of Rs. 75 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 2, but he said this was not the consideration-money for the documents but more in the nature of the price paid for purchasing over the defendant No. 2 to his side." I find it difficult to understand what practical difference there is between these two suppos