Mukerji, Ag. C.J.
1. The point to be considered in this appeal is whether the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance', was rightly ordered to pay a sum of Rupees 253 as compensation as a condition precedent to have a decree for avoidance of a sale-deed executed by her in favour of the respondents. It appears that the appellant and her mother sold a house to the respondents for a sum of Rs. 2,700. There was some trouble as regards possession, and the purchasers obtained a decree under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, for possession. Thereupon the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to obtain a cancellation of the' sale-deed so far as her interest was concerned. The prayer she asked for was in the following language:
On establishment of the fact that the sale-deed dated 30th October 1919 is unlawful and void against the plaintiff's right, a decree may be passed by the Court declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of....
2. The suit therefore fell within the purview of Section 39, Specific Relief Act, and Section 41 became applicable. That section says:
On adjudging the cancellation of an instrument, the Court may require the party to whom such relief is granted to make any compensation to the other which justice may require.
3. In this case it has been found that the plaintiff did receive her share of the purchase price. In the circum-stances there is no reason why she should not refund the money she has got and compensate the other side, when she is being allowed to retain her property. We consider that the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court is. right, and we dismiss the appeal with costs.