Phillips, J.

1. I think it is necessary in this case to set out the facts, for although the District Judge says in his judgment that the facts of this case are not in dispute, he has come to one conclusion of fact which has been questioned here. In 1905, the 3rd defendant sold certain properties to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,800 and in 1909 he sold certain other properties to the 1st defendant for Rs. 16,150. The sale to plaintiff was said to be free from encumbrances, whereas the sale to the 1st defendant recited various encumbrances on the property, which the 1st defendant was to discharge as a part of the sale price. In particular, he had to pay off a decree debt of Rs. 2,000 obtained by one Rangaswami. Admittedly, the 1st defendant did not pay off this amount and subsequently the plaintiffs properties which, together with those sold to the 1st defendant had been attached by Rangaswami before judgment, were sold. In order to prevent the sale being confirmed, the plaintiff paid the decree amount and now sues to recover that sum from defendants 1 to 3 and their families, the 2nd defendant being an alienee from the 1st defendant. The District Judge has found that neither Sectio