Devadoss, J.

1. The plaintiff sues for the recovery of money due under a hypothecation bond executed by the 1st defendant. The defence is that the debt due under the hypothecation bond was discharged by the sale of property belonging to the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs case is that a fraud was perpetrated on him by the 1st defendant which makes the sale-deed void and he is therefore, entitled to sue for the recovery of the debt due under the hypothecation bond. Both the lower Courts have found that there was no fraud committed by the 1st defendant, that the plaintiff purchased with full knowledge of all the circumstances and that he is not entitled to sue on the hypothecation bond. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

2. The first point raised by Mr. Venkatachariar, is that the evidence to vary the terms of the sale-deed, Exhibit A, should not have been admitted. Though this point was not taken in the Courts below, I allowed him to raise the point as it wend into the root of the case. The evidence complained of is the defendants written statement that the plaintiff was aware of an encumbrance in favour of one Karuppan Ambalam not mentioned in the sale-deed. In the