Phillips, J.

1. Apart from the fact that the plaintiff has by his action precluded the court from ordering an exchange between the parties of the lands sold to plaintiff by the mother of defendants 1 and 2, and the lands purchased by her in Sriperumbudur, I think that it follows from the finding that the purchase of the lands in Sriperumbudur was not contemplated at the time of the sale to plaintiff, that those lands do not constitute the benefit received by defendants 1 and 2 from plaintiff within the meaning of Section 64 of the Contract Act. I therefore agree in the order proposed.

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

2. The plaintiff is the appellant. He sued for possession of the house-site specified in the plaint. The case for the plaintiff is that the mother of the 1st and 2nd defendants acting as their guardian sold to him certain properties consisting inter alia of the site specified in the plaint for the purpose of purchasing other properties, that the defendants have not put plaintiff in possession of the property claimed by demolishing the building on the site as agreed upon. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit on the ground that the sale-deed executed by their mother is inval