The petitioner is the first defendant who bought some lands from the plaintiff in 1947 for a sum of Rs. 2,000. The plaintiff’s case was that Rs. 100 still remained unpaid by the first defendant and he sued to recover the balance alleged to be due. This was not a straightforward claim for the money due.. There was an agreement that the first defendant should discharge all the plaintiff’s debts which included a decree in a Munsiff’s Court suit. Though the first defendant paid up the debts of the plaintiff this decree was not satisfied but was transferred in the name of the second defendant. The learned Small Cause Judge rejected the plea taken that he had no jurisdiction to try this suit, went into the-merits and gave the plaintiff a decree against the first defendant only. The decision in Veerasalingam v. Suthapally Sathirasu1, was placed before him but he did not think that in point. That was a suit for recovery of a sum of money due to the plaintiff under a contract for the transfer of some pattahs for Rs. 60. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 60. It was held that the suit was for specific performance of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and therefore, the