JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. Both courts have held that as the sale-deed in favour of Kulsum and Azimun has been declared in the previous litigation between them and the plaintiff to be a fictitious transaction, the defendants-appellants deriving their title from the two ladies, cannot set up their right against the plaintiff. In so holding, the courts bellows have overlooked one fact, the determination of which is, in our opinion, very material, It is this: assuming that the two ladies, Kulsum and Azimun, had no right to the property and that the sale-deed in their favour was nominal and fictitious, if the sale by them to Net Ram was brought about by Ghulam Mustafa, who was the actual owner of the property, and if Net Ram purchased the property for consideration upon representations made to him by Ghulam Mustafa, the latter would be precluded from setting up his title against Net Ram, and the sale to Net Ram would have the effect of conveying to him the interests of Ghulam Mustafa, which the latter had purported to convey by the fictitious sale-deed to his two wives. 2. If Ghulam Mustafa has thus ceased to have any interest in the property, the plaintiff as the creditor of Ghulam Mustafa under a decree under section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act, cannot proceed against the property now in the hands of the successors in title of Net Ram. It was thus very material for the purposes of the suit for the courts below to determine whether Net Ram was a purchaser for value, and whether the sale to him was made with the assent of and upon representations made to him by Ghulam Mustafa. That issue the court below has failed to determine. We refer it to the lower appellate court under section 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court will take such additional evidence as may be necessary, and on return of the findings ten days will be allowed for objections. [Upon the findings submitted by the lower appellate court the appeal was decreed with costs on 8th August, 1904.]