1. The plaintiff brought certain specific land from the first defendant, a Mahomedan. The first defendant had bought this land from a coparcener in a Hindu family. The other co-parceners instituted a suit for partition and it was during the pendency of that suit that the first defendant sold the land to the plaintiff. By the decree in the suit for partition the land with which we are concerned was not allotted to the vendor of the first defendant but some other land was given to him instead. According to the dictum of the learned Judges of this Court in Nanjayya v. Shanmuga (1918) I.L.R. 38 Mad. 684 under such circumstances so far as any question lay between the first defendant and the coparcener from whom he bought the land, the first defendant would be entitled to whatever was substituted by any decree for partition for the land which he had bought from the co-parcener. This principle seems to have been acquiesced in two other decisions of this Court, one of which is reported in Sabapathi Pillai v. Thandavaraya Odayar (1919) I.L.R. 43 Mad. 309 : 37 M.L.J. 620 and we are prepared for the purposes of this argument to assume that that proposition of law is correct. Even then