JUDGMENT

Sen, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the Raja of Daiya in a suit for a declaration that Pancham Ram was the actual owner of the zamindari property in Bhagwanpur and Pura Ram Nath under a sale-deed dated 7th March 1922, that the plaintiffs were the owners of the property by virtue of their purchase from Pancham and that the sale deed dated 13th March 1923, in favour of Raja Drig Bijai Singh of Daiya and all the consequential mutation proceedings and the order of the revenue Court cancelling the sale-deed in favour of Pancham Ram aforesaid were ineffectual against the plaintiffs.

2. The properties in suit are situate in the Meja Sub division of the district of Allahabad and are subject to the provisions of the Bundelkhand Alienation of Land Act (No. 2 of 1903).

3. The properties were, owned by Lala Durga Prasad Singh, caste Kshatriya-Gaharwar. On 17th September 1919 he made a usufructuary mortgage from 1327-1346 FF in favour of Lala Ram Lal and Lala Raghunath Prasad for Rs. 1,600, On 7th March 1922 he sold the properties to Pancham Ram Brahman Tewari, defendant 3, resident of district Allahabad for Rs. 5,000. The details of the sale consideration are as follows.

4. Rs. 600 were received as earnest-money on 16th February 1922.

5. Rs. 110 6-3 for expenses relating to the execution and completion of the document;

6. Rs. 1,421 were received in cash before the Sub-Registrar.

7. Rs. 2,868-9-9 were left with the vendee for payment to Lala Ram Lal and Lala Ganesh Prasad, son of Lala Raghunath Prasad deceased on account of the mortgage dated 17th September 1919.

8. Lala Durga Prasad Singh, the vendor and Pancham Ram, the ostensible vendee are agriculturists within the meaning of the Land Alienation Act.

9. Pancham Ram applied for mutation and his name was recorded in the revenue papers without any challenge or protest on the 26th April 1922.

10. On 27th February 1923 Pancham Ram sold these properties to Kamta Prasad Singh, the original plaintiffs in the action, for Rs. 5,300. The details of the sale consideration are as follows:

11. Rs. 100 was taken for the cost of the execution and completion of the document.

12. Rs. 2,331-6-0 were paid in cash before the Sub-Registrar;

13. Rs. 2,86810-0 were left in deposit with the vendee for payment of the debts due to Lala Ram Lal.

14. The stamp paper was purchased by Pancham himself and there is the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar that Rs. 2.331-6-0 were paid to Pancham, is currency notes and cash in his presence. Chowdhry Kampta Prasad Singh applied for the substitution of his name in place of Pancham in the village administration papers but during the pendency of the application, Lala Durga Prasad Singh sold the properties over again to Raja Drig Bijai Singh of Daiya for Rs. 8,000. The recitals in the documents are extraordinary and out of the common. He states that he had already mortgaged the properties to Ram Lal and Ganesh Prasad on 18th September 1919, and Lala Ram Lal had fictitiously obtained the sale-deed dated 7th March 1922 in the name of his servant Pancham on condition that he would obtain the permission of the Collector. Ram Lal himself paid the sale consideration but now the executant had come to know that the sale-deed had been fictitiously obtained in favour of Pancham and as the Collector had refused permission to Ram Lal the sale-deed dated 7th March 1922 did not escape the operation of the Bundelkhand Act and was null and void as against him.

15. On 13th March 1923 Durga Prasad Singh made an application to the Collector praying for the cancellation of the sale-deed dated 7th March 1922 for the removal of the name of Pancham Ram, and for the substitution of his name therein. This application purports to be under para. 9 of the rules of the Revenue Department, issued on 20th of" June 1903. The application states in unmistakable terms that Ram Lal and Ganesh Prasad were the real purchasers of the property, that Pancham was only a convenient tool. He was merely a cloak used for