JUDGMENT : Richards, J. The only point that arises for determination R in this appeal is one under-section 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit is one for possession of certain property and is brought by the plaintiff against Janki Prasad, who is the assignee of a Hindu widow. It is admitted that the suit for possession must be decreed unless Janki Prasad can show that he purchased from the widow and that she made the sale in exercise of her powers on that behalf on the occasion of a legal necessity. The lower appellate Court has found that there was no legal necessity but the appellant says that Janki Prasad was examined under section 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the substance of his examination was reduced to writing and now forms part of the record. 2. He says that it is clear from the judgment of the lower appellate Court that in coming to this conclusion on the question of fact the learned Judge disregarded the examination of Janki Prasad. I think the lower appellate Court was quite correct in so disregarding, that examination. Section 118 was never intended to be in substitution for regular examination on oath, but was merely a provision to enable the Court to ascertain what the real questions in controversy were, and any statement, made by a party while being examined under that section, could only be considered as binding on the person, who was examined and made the statement. I accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs including fees in this Court on the higher scale.