Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The facts necessary for deciding this ease are not sufficiently stated in the appellate judgment. The plaintiff is the appellant. He entered into a contract of sale of some properties with one Gangadharudu for Rs. 1,500 and after receiving Rs. 200 from him, as earnest money, pub him in possession of those properties. Subsequently, he executed a sale deed to Gopaludu (the defendant in the present suit) for a consideration of Rs. 2,000. Both the vendees instituted suits against the plaintiff, for appropriate reliefs; O.S. No. 352 of 1909 was by the second vendee (the present defendant) against his vendor (the present plaintiff). Gangadharudu and another for possession of the properties and O.S. No. 473 of 1909, was by Gaugadharmlu (the first vendee) for specific performance of the contract against his vendor (the present plaintiff), subsequent vendee (the present defendant) and another Seshayya. Both suits were ultimately, tried together. O.S. No. 352 of 1909 was dismissed and it was found in the litigation between these parties that Gopaludu was only a benamidar for Sesbayya, the 3rd defendant, in O.S. No. 473 of 1909, and had no real interest in the tran