JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff brought this suit to enforce specific performance of a contract to execute a kabuliyat in his favour. The facts are that the Plaintiff sued the Defendant No. 1 for khas possession of 3 cottahs of land. The suit was compromised and dismissed in accordance with the terms of the compromise. The Defendant No. 1 then assigned the land to the Defendant No. 2 and the Plaintiff again sued the Defendant No. 1, making the Defendant No 2 a party Defendant, for ejectment on the ground that the Defendant No. 1 by assigning his interest in the land had forfeited his tenancy. This suit was dismissed. The Plaintiff then instituted this suit for specific performance of the contract to execute a kabuliyat. 2. The Munsif gave him a decree. The Defendants 1 and 2 appealed to the Subordinate Judge. Two pleas were raised before the Subordinate Judge, viz., (1) that the Defendant No. 2 was a bond fide purchaser for value; (2) that the pleader of the Defendant No. 1 had entered into the solenamah without authority. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal. 3. The Defendants now appeal to this Court. On their behalf it has been argued by Mr. Hill (1) that the suit is barred by sec. 244, C. P. C., (2) that it is barred by limitation, (3) that in suing to eject the Defendant the Plaintiff acted in contravention of the terms of the solenamah and so cannot now sue to enforce it. 4. We think there is no force in any of these pleas.. In support of his first plea Mr. Hill argues that when a decree was passed in the first ejectment suit, Plaintiff could have executed his decree, but cannot bring a separate suit for specific performance. Such a plea was not taken in the Defendant's written statement before the lower Appellate Court or in the memorandum of appeal to this Court. Further it fails on the merits. For the suit No. 521 of 1893 for khas possession was dismissed. There was no direction in the decree for the execution by the Defendant of any kabuliyat and the Plaintiff could not obtain the relief he now seeks for except by a suit to enforce the terms of the solenamah. The plea of limitation was raised in the first Court and decided against the Defendants. There was no direction in the decree for the execution by the Defendant of any kabuliyat and the Plaintiff could not obtain the relief he now seeks for except by a suit to enforce the terms of the solenamah. The plea of limitation was raised in the first Court and decided against the Defendants. They did not argue this point before the lower Appellate Court. There would seem to be no ground for our finding that the suit is barred by limitation. The first Court has found that the Plaintiffs came to know that the Defendant No. 1 refused to execute a kabuliyat when the Plaintiff's suit No. 410 of 1897 was dismissed on the 24th June 1898. But even if it be held that the Defendant No. 1 refused to execute the kabuliyat when he filed his written statement in suit No. 643 of 1895, that written statement was presented on the 29th October 1895, which is within 3 years of the institution of the present suit. 5. Finally the Plaintiff does not seem, in bringing suit No. 410 of 1898, to have acted in contravention of the terms of the solenamah. When he brought that suit he treated the Defendant No. 1 as his tenant under the solenamah which he referred to and admitted. He merely pleaded that the Defendant No. 1 had forfeited his rights under the solenamah by assigning the land to the Defendant No. 2. This does not preclude the Plaintiff from now suing for a kabuliyat. 6. This plea, too, was raised in the Court of first instance and apparently waived in the lower Appellate Court. We dismiss the appeal with costs.