This second appeal involves an important question of law as to the interpretation that should be placed on the words ‘transferee’ for value who has paid money in good faith and without notice of the original contract" in clause (b) of section 27 of the Specific Relief Act. The contention which found favour with the lower Courts is that the consideration for the subsequent transaction must be in money and not by way of adjustment as in the present case. In support of this reliance was placed on a judgment of Horwill, J., in Jamatrai v. Thukkappa1, where the learned Judge took the view that at any rate a portion of the consideration must be in the shape of money. It is contended that that judgment cannot be supported especially in view of the words " transferee for value " that is, it would be sufficient if the transfer is for valuable consideration irrespective of whether the consideration is in the shape of money or adjustment of pre-existing debts or otherwise. As this involves the consideration of the correctness or otherwise of a judgment of a learned Judge of this Court I consider that it is necessary that this Second Appeal should be heard by a Bench. Place the papers bef