1. This was a Rule calling on the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court of Rangpore should not be set aside.
2. The plaintiff in that Court purchased a certain property from the defendant for a sum of Rs. 400. He purchased it on conditions, one of which was that if the vendor could not let the purchaser into possession of the property sold', or if in future any one would lay claim to the property and dispossess the purchaser of it, then the vendor would refund the purchase-money with interest. Whether the purchaser did or did not get into possession of the property is not certain as far as the findings in this case go. But what did happen is that a third party attached the property in execution of a money-decree obtained against the vendor. There-upon the purchaser laid a claim which was eventually dismissed. He did not avail himself of his remedy under the law to bring a (suit to establish his title to the property in question; but brought this suit in order to recover Rs. 400 under the proviso in his agreement. The lower Court, in the first place, expressed a doubt as to whether there was any consideration for the original sale. In the second place, it has been held that the condition provided for in the purchase-deed did not arise. In this, it seems to us, he was correct. The property was attached, but it does not follow that the purchaser was thereby dispossessed.
3. The result is that the judgment of the lower Court appeal's to us to be correct and this Rule is discharged with costs. We assess the hearing fee at two gold mohurs.