JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal against the decision dated 23rd March 1931 of the District Judge of Hardoi reversing the decision dated 25th November 1930 of the Munsif of that place. It arises out of a suit to recover arrears of guzara allowance alleged to be a charge on village Bhagaunda which is now in the possession of the defendant-respondent. For the elucidation of the points in dispute, it is necessary to state in brief the earlier history of the case which has led up to the present litigation. On 5th July 1867 Naubat Rai, predeeessor-in-title of the plaintiffs made an application (Ex. A-1) to the British Indian Association claiming a.one-fourth share in Taluka Sarwan Baragaon against Raja Fateh Chand and Raja Dhanpat Rai defendant. A committee of the British Indian Association, by their judgment Ex. A-2 dated 7th August 1868, dismissed the suit but at the end they remarked that the defendants had been moved to allow maintenance to the applicant as a favour. Next we have an award of the committee of the British Indian Association (Ex. 1) in which it is stated that the plaintiff had agreed to accept Rs. 1,200 as guzara and that the defendants had agreed to give it, according to the rules of the British Indian Association. It further states that the members of the committee thought that it would be proper that the defendants should give to the plaintiff a kham village in lieu of Rs. 600 and a pukhtadari village in lieu of the balance of Rs. 600 and that the plaintiff should have a decree against the entire, village (possi-bily a mistake for taluka) Sarwan Bara-gaon. The concluding portion of the order is that a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and his cosharers on condition of his filing a razinama. Ex. 1 which is a certified copy does not show the date of this order. We sent for the record from our record room and have found that the original of this document bears the date, 11th July 1869. We have also an order of the Financial Commissioner (Ex. 6) dated 11th July 1869 which runs as follows:

Naubat Rai has appeared before me this day and agreed to receive Rs. 1,200 profits from any village in fulfilment of his claim. The committee agree to amend accordingly.

2. It appears that Dhanpat Rai died leaving a son Raja Durga Prasad and that the estate of Raja Durga Prasad was. taken over by the Court of Wards under its superintendence. On 30th August 1870 the Collector of Hardoi sent a rubkar (Ex. 3) to the Superintendent of the Court of Wards asking him to specify some village with an income of Rs. 600 for being given to Naubat Rai. Ex. 4 dated 19th September 1870 is a letter of Raja Durga Prasad saying that he was willing that lands in Mauza Khajauna yielding Rs. 300 and the profits of Rs. 300 out of Mauza Bhagaunda be given to Naubat Rai. The Superintendent of the Court of Wards by his letter (Ex. 5) dated 26th September 1870 communicated to the Deputy Commissioner the proposals made by Raja Durga Prasad. The plaintiffs' case was that in pursuance of the above proceedings, their ancestors had been put in possession of certain lands in village Khajauna which are still in their occupation and that they had been realizing Rs. 300 per annum from the profits of village Bha-gaunda. It was further alleged that village Bhagaunda had been sold in execution of a decree against Raja Durga Prasad and had been purchased by the defendant who refused to pay the sum of Rs. 300 per annum to which the plaintiff was entitled out of the income of village Bhagaunda. The plaintiffs therefore claimed a decree for arrears of the guzara at the rate of Rs. 300 per annum together with interest by sale of village Bhagaunda.

3. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs were entitled only to a cash guzara which was not a charge on any property. He also pleaded that he was a bona fide purchaser for consideration without any notice of the plaintiffs' claim and that the plaintiff could not therefore enforce any payment of th