JUDGMENT

Dunkley, J - The two suits in the Sub-divisional Court of Myanaung, out of which these second appeals arise, both concern the same holding of agricultural land. In suit No. 38 of 1932,, out of which Second Appeal No. 84 of 1934 arises, Ma Mai Wi sued Maung Yan and his wife and four other persons who were subsequent purchasers of this land from Maung Yan and his wife for specific performance of a contract of sale. In suit No. 2 of 1933, Ma Thein May and Ma Lon Ma Gale, who were defendants in the suit brought by Ma Mai Wi and were the last purchasers of this land, sued Ma Mai Wi and the persons from whom they derived title for a decree for possession of the land. Ma Mai Wi has been successful in her suit in the original Court and on appeal to the District Court of Henzada. The suit of Ma Thein May and Ma Lon Ma Gale was dismissed by the Sub-divisional Court and this dismissal was upheld on appeal to the District Court.

2. The facts which have been found by the lower Court, and which cannot now be disputed; are that nine years ago Maung Yan and his wife Ma Shwe Nu, verbally contracted to sell the land in suit to Ma Mai Wi and her deceased husband. U. Pyaung, for a sum of Rs. 2,150. The consideration was paid, and the land was delivered to her and her deceased husband and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land ever-since then. However no registered deed of sale was ever executed. Although the tax receipts continued to be issued in the names of Maung Yan and his wife Ma Mai Wi and U. Pyaung paid the revenue up to the year 1930-31, but in April 1931, Maung Yan went to the headman and paid the revenue due on the land and obtained the tax receipt. He then proceeded to sell the land to U San U and Ma Yin by a registered deed on 4th April 1931 and subsequently, on 11th August 1932, U San U and Ma Yin sold the land by registered deed to Ma Thein May and Ma Lon Ma Gale.

3. In regard to Ma Mai Wi's suit for specific performance of the contract, the first point which has been raised on behalf of the appellants in appeal No. 84 is that there was a completed sale by an unregistered deed by Maung Yan and his wife to Ma Mai Wi and her husband, and that this unregistered deed cannot be the basis of a suit for specific performance and as authority for this proposition the case of James Skinner v. R.H. Skinner 1929 P.C. 269, is quoted, but the only evidence that there was such an unregistered document is contained in a statement made by one of the witnessed U Kyaw Dun Zan, in another proceeding a copy of his deposition having been filed in suit No. 38 of 1932 of the Sub-divisional Court, and this is not substantive evidence. Moreover, both the lower Courts have held that Ma Mai Wi and her husband entered into possession under an oral contract for sale, and this finding of fact cannot now be disputed. Secondly it is urged on the authority of the case of Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung 1922 P.C. 249 that specific performance of this contract made nine years ago cannot now be granted, but in the present case it cannot be said that Ma Mai Wi has slept over her rights for she obtained possession of the land at the time when the contract was entered into, and since that time has been in possession and enjoyed the usufruct thereof. In fact the contract in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung 1922 P.C. 249 was an executory contract, whereas the contract in the present case is an executed contract and this fact distinguishes the present case from Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung 1922 P.C. 249. It is clear that Ma Mai Wi had no notice of the refusal of Maung Yan and his wife to perform the contract by executing a registered deed until Maung Yan took away the tax ticket from the headman's house in April 1931 and therefore under the provisions of Article 113 Schedule 1, Limitation Act, her suit was within time, and has, in my opinion, been rightly decreed.

4. In regard to the appeal of Ma Thein May and Ma Lon Gale, in Appeal No. 85 of 1934 th