JUDGMENT

Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J. - By our order, dated the 9th of July, 1915, we referred an issue to the court below. The finding on tins issue has now been returned. We think it desirable very shortly to refer to the nature of the suit. The plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of the defendant. The suit is a suit to recover possession of a house. The house admittedly belonged at one time to the defendant. The house was under attachment in execution of a decree against the defendant. Before the sale a deed of transfer was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. She was his daughter-in-law, and her husband (the son of the defendant) was then alive. It was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that she paid the purchase money of the house and became the purchaser. It was alleged on behalf of the defendant that the whole transaction was fictitious and that no consideration of any kind over passed. As the result of the finding of the court below on the issue we referred, it is now established that the money was really paid by the father of the plaintiff at the time of the attachment and was duly received by the defendant. There can be no doubt (whether the mo