The third defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted for a declaration of the plaintiff’s title to the plaint schedule properties and for possession. To establish his title the plaintiff relied upon an agreement of sale, dated 26th July, 1926, Exhibit P-8 executed by one Subbayya in favour of the first defendant and a conveyance by the first defendant, dated 19th August, 1944, Exhibit P-1 in his favour. The third defendant claimed that the purchase by the first defendant from Subbayya the original owner was really for his benefit and he relied in support of his title upon Exhibit D-1, dated 26th July, 1926, i.e., the same date as Exhibit P-8, which, it is alleged, was executed by Subbayya in favour of the third defendant who was then a minor represented by the first defendant as guardian. It has now been found by the Courts below that Exhibit D-1 is not genuine. The only question which remains outstanding for disposal and which is a question of law is whether Exhibit P-8, which is a copy of the original agreement by Subbayya in favour of the first defendant is admissible in evidence as the original, it is