Arnold White, C.J.

1. The main defence in this suit was that Ex. B which is an arrangement which was entered into by the 1st defendants predecessor-in-office as Karnavan of the Tarwad and the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest had been revoked. The District Judge finds that it has not been revoked. This is a question of fact which is binding on us in second appeal.

2. Then, on behalf of the appellant, it was argued that Ex. B is not binding on him as the successor-in-office of the man by whom the agreement was entered into. I feel some doubt as to whether we should allow this point to be raised before us at all, because the judgment of the learned District Judge, as I read it, strongly suggests that the point was never taken before him. The learned Judge refers to the fact in the 4th paragraph. The 1st defendants Vakil supports the decree on the ground that the suit should be dismissed on the first issue, i.e. non-joinder. But it does not say that any discussion took place before him with reference to the question as to whether Ex. B was binding or not binding, apart from any question of revocation, on the 1st defendant.

3. The agreement purports, as I read it, to have been en