JUDGMENT Sir George Knox, Banerji and Richards, JJ. - On the 9th of April, 1910, we allowed the appeal in this case, and, setting aside the decree of the court below, decreed the plaintiffs' suit with costs. After we had made our decree, Ganga Sahai, one of the respondents, asked us to review our judgment of the 9th of April, 1910, on the ground that the only question which had been argued before us was the pure question of law that arose in the case, and that other questions arising in the case had not been heard and decided. We issued notice to the appellants to show cause why this application should not be granted. No cause having been shown, we allowed the application and directed that the appeal be put up for hearing. To-day the learned advocate for Ganga Sahai, respondent, tried to support the decree of the court below on the ground that the property in suit was purchased by Ganga Sahai for himself, and the plaintiffs had no title to the same. We find that the issue thus raised was dealt with by the learned Subordinate Judge and his judgment on this point will be found at page 12 of the paper book in F.A. No. 57 of 1907. We agree entirely with what the learned Subordinate Judge there held and adopt the view taken by him. There is no question whatever that the equity in this case lies on the side of the plaintiffs. 2. A further plea was raised based on section 317 of Act XIV of 1882. This plea was not taken in the court below and in our opinion is entirely without substance. This is not the case of a benami purchaser. 3. No other point was pressed before us. 4. The appeal is allowed, the decree of the court below is set aside and the plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs in both courts.