JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage executed by two Muhammadan ladies in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 50. The first of these ladies did not defend and the second is dead and is represented by her daughter, the defendant No. 2, Her main defence to the suit was that no consideration passed, but that if it did, the money was paid to the first defendant and not to the second defendant's mother. The Court of first instance on the pleadings framed two issues only: (1) Is the deed in question a mortgage deed ? If so, is it valid and for consideration.? Are the defendants bound by it? and (2) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?

2. Evidence was led on these issues and in the result the Trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit as brought. The defendant appealed and attacked all the findings of the First Court and for the first time pleaded that Musammat Sarwarunnissa was a pardanashin lady and that it had not been shown whether she had independent advice about the deed or not. The Appellate Court upheld all the findings of the First Court, but on this new ground of appeal it held that Musammat Sarwarunnissa was a pardanashin lady and