1. The only point of law arising in this appeal is whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the landlords were not estopped from disputing the plaintiffs' interest in the holding. Plaintiffs' title is based on the purchase of a moiety of a holding from defendant No. 10. In two subsequent rent suits brought by the landlords, defendants Nos. 1 to 7, against the recorded tenants, the property was put up for sale in execution. In the sale which took place in 1904 the plaintiffs deposited the money to save the sale and that deposit was withdrawn by the landlords. The question is, whether there was anything in the making of that deposit which would bring to the landlords' notice the fact that the plaintiffs were interested in the holding and were claiming such interest. It is now conceded by the learned Pleader for the plaintiffs-appellants that all that appeared on that occasion was the plaintiffs' names in the challan. There was no suggestion then made that the plaintiffs were interested in the property. The learned Pleader informs us that there was a document which would imply such an assertion, but that that was not proved in either of the Courts below. It cannot, therefore, be taken into consideration in second appeal. That being the case, the point is concluded by the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.