1. The only point in this second appeal is whether the defendants 1 and 2 should be allowed to retain a portion of the property purchased by them, or whether they should be allowed to have only a charge for the amounts found binding upon the plaintiffs. The District Munsif decreed possession of the plaint property and gave a charge to the defendants 1 and 2 for the amounts binding on the plaintiffs. The Subordinate Judge has modified the decree by allowing defendants 1 and 2 to retain a portion of the property purchased by them. It is found by the Subordinate Judge that out of the consideration of Rs. 1,500/- for Ex. 2 only Rs. 912/- was binding upon the plaintiffs, and out of the consideration of Rs. 1,800 for Ex. I only Rs. 407 was found binding upon the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, the question is whether the Court would be justified in giving the defendants 1 and 2 any portion of the property purchased by them. When the consideration which is found binding upon the plaintiffs, is a little more than half, it would not be right to allow the transaction to stand to any extent. We cannot lay down any hard and fast rule as to the form of the decree in cases of this kind. But where the amount of consideration which is found not binding upon the plaintiffs is large, the Courts will not be justified in allowing the vendees to retain a portion of the property purchased by them. In such cases the proper decree would be to give a decree to the plaintiffs for possession of the property sold and give a charge to the defendants for the amount found binding on the plaintiffs. We, therefore, set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs here (one set) and the lower appellate Court. The amounts found due by the Subordinate Judge will stand.
2. The memorandum of objections is dismissed with costs.