1. The only questions therefore that arise in this appeal are as to the validity of the transaction which falls into two parts; first; the question of the surrender which is alleged by the respondents to invalidate the whole transaction; and secondly, the question of the sale of the villages as distinguished from the surrender, if that can stand as a separate transaction.

2. Taking first the question of the surrender we are of opinion that the view of the lower Court that the sale of the villages and the surrender formed one transaction is correct. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that if this were a suit for the recovery of consideration, it might be argued that the whole transaction is void. But here we have two promises, one legal and one, according to the other side, illegal. The consideration of the surrender was paid nine months after the sale, during which period the defendant was in possession as a lessee. There can be no doubt that the agreement between the parties was that Venkatrao should sell the villages including his occupancy rights in the sir lands, to the defendant. In this connection we may refer to Exhibit, P. 57, which is a letter from the defen