Sundara Aiyar, J.

1. The suit in this case is for restraining first defendant from interfering 11th the plaintiffs enjoyment of certain lands. The plaintiff obtained a sale of it from the 2nd defendant in 1906. Prior to the sale the land had been sold in execution of a decree against the 2nd defendant in a Small Cause Suit. The 1st defendant was the auction purchaser. The auction sale took place in June 1904. Admittedly the land previously belonged to the 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs case is that the auction purchase was really for the benefit of the 2nd defendant and that the 1st defendant was only a benamidar. This plea has been upheld by both the courts. The 1st defendant set up his own title to the land as the real purchaser and contended that Section 317 of Civil Procedure Code was a bar to the plaintiffs suit. Both the Lower Courts held that Section 317. was not applicable in the circumstances of the case. There was an issue raised as to whether the 1st defendant was estopped by his conduct from questioning plaintiffs title. The conduct referred to consisted in the 1st defendant allowing the 2nd defendant to remain in possession of the land for a period of about 3 yea