JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiffs sued for the refund of purchase money under the following circumstances: They purchased a certain property from a Hindu father and the sale was subsequently cancelled on the opposite side depositing Rs. 900 in Court for payment to the plaintiffs. The sale consideration was Rs. 3,475 and the plaintiffs sued the defendants who are sons of Hanuman, vendor, for the balance of the purchase-money. The trial Court in a well-reasoned judgment held that the suit was not barred under the provisions of Section 11 of the CPC but that it was barred by limitation. On appeal these decisions were reversed, but the result was the same and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. This is a second appeal.

2. We agree with the trial Court that the suit is not barred by the principles of res judicata. There is a ruling of this Court in support of the view that in the former suit by the sons of the Hindu vendor then deceased the plaintiffs as defendants could not have claimed refund of the purchase-money. In the case of Madan Gopal v. Sati Prasad [1917] 39 All. 485 two learned Judges of this Court pointed out at page 488 that money paid to the father as consideration for the sale at