The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of limitation laws to the plaintiff's claim, the requirement of bona fide payments, and the entitlement to a charge on the property based on a valid title.

Spencer, J.

IN APPEAL NO. 239 of 1918

1. This suit was brought to recover from first defendant certain sums of money paid by the plaintiff to first defendants creditors in pursuance of directions contained in a sale-deed of immoveable property purchased from 13th defendant who had previously purchased the same property from first defendant.

2. The sale by first defendant to 13th defendant was effected on January 20th, 1907 through a registered instrument (Exhibit A) and Was for Rs. 5,000. That by 13th defendant to the plaintiff is through another registered sale-deed (Exhibit B.) dated August 22nd, 1908.

3. When the plaintiff sued in Original Suit No. 3 of 1909 to recover possession of the lands purchased by him he was successful in the District Munsif s Court but his suit was dismissed in the Sub-Court owing to a finding by the Subordinate Judge that his vendors purchase under Exhibit A was a nominal sale which never took effect. There was a second appeal but the High Court declined to interfere for the obvious reason that what was decided by the lower Appellate Court was a question of fact.

4. the learned Subordinate Judge in the present suit has granted the plaintiff a charge over the suit properties for certain sums of money and a direction for sale in default of payment (the date by which they are to be paid is not specified in the decree) also a personal decree against defendants Nos. 1 and 13 and a decree against the family properties against first defendants sons defendants Nos. 2 and 3, for the unrealised balance after sale of the suit properties also a personal decree against the 13th defendant for a sum of Sections So paid into the hands of 13th defendant oil August 22nd, 1908, and interest thereon up to the date of suit. Plaintiff and 13th defendant appeal.

5. the memorandum of objections filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 strikes at the root of the plaintiffs case and has therefore been heard first The two main objections to the decree of the lower Court are 50 Ind. Cas. 444 : 46 C. 670 : 17 A.L.J. 514 : 36 M.L.J. 557 : 23 C.W.N. 721 : 21 Bom. L.R. 632 : (1919) M.W.N. 258 : 30 C.L.J. 71 : 26 M.L.T. 131 : L.W. 416 : 46 I.A. 52 (P.C.). that the payments made by the plaintiff were made voluntarily by him on his own account and give rise to no legal obligation for his being reimbursed 60 Ind. Cas. 235 : M.L.J. 449 : 27 M.L.T. 304 : 11 L.W. 537 that the suit is barred by limitation

6. The finding of the Subordinate Judges Court in appeal from the Munsifs decree in Original Suit No. 3 of 1909 to which first defendant was a party that the sale to 13th defendant was a nominal transaction and never took effect binds the plaintiff in this subsequent suit as res judicata. Exhibit VII, which is a notice sent on May 18th 1908 by first defendant to the plaintiff warning him that the sale in favour of 13th defendant was nominal unenforceable and had not been given effect to and that he would be liable for any loss consequent on any second sale that he might take from 13th defendant was sufficient to put him on notice of the defects of 13th defendants title. After this he cannot put forward any plea that he is a bona the purchaser without notice. But although plaintiffs purchase was not the bona fide act of a stranger it does not follow that after he took a sale-deed from 13th defendant the payments he made to preserve the property from the clutches of the original vendors creditors were not made bona fide, especially those which he made after his title had been established in the Court of first instance. His purchase was no doubt speculative as with his eyes open he took the risk of his sale-deed turning out to be a worthless bit of paper but having taken it he was bound by the terms of his contract with 13th defendant and by the provisions of Section 55(5)(d) of the Transfer of Property Act to mike these payments. He was interested in the widest sense in which the word is used in Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act in making t