JUDGMENT

Mackney, J - The appellant, Maung Po Lu, is the son of U Sit Kauk and Daw Hla Win. U Sit Kauk predeceased his wife, and after the death of Daw Hla Win, by an award dated 25th August 1919 Maung Po Lu received certain property in settlement of his claim to a Quarter share of the estate of his parents. The rest of the estate remained in the hands of his sister, Ma Kyiti Sein, and included the shares of another sister, Ma Lwan and of a brother, Maung HlaShwe. Ma Kyin Sein was in entire control of the property. She launched out in extensive business, made profits, and acquired fresh property. About the year 1925 Maung Hla Shwe died. He could not have been more than 14 or 15 years of age at that time. In 1927 Ma. Lwau applied for leave to sue in forma pauperis for administration of the estate of Daw Hla Win, and for her share. During the pendency of that matter, Ma Lwan and Ma Kyin Sein agreed to refer the matter in dispute to arbitration. The arbitrators awarded Ma Lwan a certain amount of property, and Ma Lwan's application to the Court was dismissed. She subsequently filed a suit to set aside the award, but that suit also was dismissed. In her application to the Court for leave to sue as a pauper, (Civil Miscellaneous No. 88 of 1927,) Ma Lwan had also claimed a half of the share of Maung Hla Shwe, deceased. She had included Maung Po Lu as a respondent, but said that he had taken his share and left the family, Maung Po Lu appeared and filed an objection, in which he merely stated that Ma Lwan was not a pauper and was not entitled to sue as such. Maung Po Lu does not appear to have taken any further interest in the proceedings.

2. On 13th December 1928, Ma Kyin Sein executed a mortgage of certain property in her possession to the S.R.M.M.A. Chettyar firm, and this firm on 24th February 1930 assigned the mortgage to the respondent Bank of Chettinad. On 17th July 1931, the Bank of Chettinad obtained a decree against Ma Kyin Sein in Civil Regular Suit No. 18 of 1931 for payment of Rs. 6,265, and in execution case No. 52 of 1931, instituted, on 11th October 1931, they proceeded to execute this decree. By 5th November 1931 certain property in the possession of Ma Kyin Sein had been duly attached. It was ultimately sold to the Bank of Chettinad, and the sale was confirmed on 22nd January 1932. In the certificate of sale it was mentioned that the property was subject to the mortgage held by the Bank of Chettinad. Meanwhile, on 3rd August 1931 (Civil Miscellaneous No. 36 of 1931, which ultimately became Civil Regular No. 26 of 1931) Maung Po Lu filed an application for leave to, sue Ma Kyin Sein in forma pauperis, for the recovery of his share in the estate of Maung Hla Shwe. The suit became an administration suit. Maung Po Lu claiming one-half of the whole of Maung Hla Shwe's estate which he alleged remained with Ma Kyin Sein after Ma Lwan had taken her share of their parents' estate. The judgment in this suit was pronounoed on 16th November 1931, and on the same date the parties filed a joint petition, whereby Ma Kyin Sein agreed to give, and Maung Po Lu agreed to accept, in settlement of his claim, certain specified properties. The decree of the Court was drawn up in accordance with this agreement, and included among the properties awarded to Maung Po Lu the very properties which were ultimately purchased by the Bank of Chettinad at the Court auction. It does not appear that Maung Po Lu ever obtained lawful possession of these properties. In Civil Suit No. 44 of 1932, out of which the present appeal arises, Maung Po Lu sued the Bank of Chettinad for a declaration that he was the owner of these properties, and for possession thereof. The District Court held that Ma Kyin Sein with the knowledge and consent of Maung Po Lu had held herself out to be the exclusive owner of the property, and that the Bank of Chettinad could invoke the protection of Section 41, T.P. Act; that Maung Po Lu was not entitled to make his present claim withou