JUDGMENT Ryves, J. - In our opinion this appeal must succeed. The facts very briefly are as follows. Mathura Prasad on the 20th November 1917 in execution of a simple money decree held by Kashi Prasad against Musammat Jagrani Kunwar purchased the property now in suit which was recorded in her name. Two years subsequently this suit was filed by the plaintiff Musammat Anandi Kunwar for a declaration that Mathura Prasad had acquired no title by his purchase because the property did not belong to Musammat Jagrani Kunwar at all, but to herself, the plaintiff. Mathura Prasad among other pleas, pleaded that the plaintiff had held out that Musammat Sheorani Kunwar was the owner of an eight annas share in Mauza Kaendipur in which the property in suit is situated and that her claim was barred "by the principle of estoppel and under S. 41. of the Transfer of Property Act." Both Courts have decreed the suit. 2. The defendant Mathura Prasad appeals on the ground that on the findings of fact the suit should have been dismissed. The findings arrived at by the lower Court may be summarised briefly as follows that Bhairon Prasad was the last surviving male owner of the property in suit. During his life-time however his mother, Musammat Munna Kunwar and her two sisters were recorded as owners of 1/3rd each. He died in 1884 leaving Musammat Anandi Kunwar his widow. Instead of her name being recorded that of his mother, Musammat Munna Kunwar and two of her sisters' remained recorded as owners of one-third each of the property. Both these sisters died before Musammat Munna Kunwar and she was eventually recorded as the sole owner. She died in 1907. Thereupon a dispute arose between Musammat Sheorani Kunwar the mother of Musammat Jagrani Kunwar and the plaintiff in the mutation proceedings and ultimately on the admission of Musammat Anandi Kunwar herself Musammat Sheorani Kunwar was recorded as. owner of half the property. Musammat Sheorani Kunwar died in 1914 and then Musammat Jagrani Kunwar was entered as owner of the half in place of her mother. 3. This was the position of things when in l917 Mathura Prasad, who lived in other village and had no connection with the family, bought the property at the execution sale It seems to us that there was really nothing to put him on inquiry. 3. This was the position of things when in l917 Mathura Prasad, who lived in other village and had no connection with the family, bought the property at the execution sale It seems to us that there was really nothing to put him on inquiry. The property had been entered in the name of Musammat Jagrani Kunwar and her mother ever since 1907. If he had looked at the mutation proceedings he would have seen that Musaramat Anandi Kunwar was a party to those proceedings. It seems to us that as there was nothing to put him on inquiry the principle underlying 3-41 of the Transfer of Property Act would apply. But in any case we think it is not open to Musammat Anandi Kunwar, who in 1907 deliberately by her own act got the name of Musammat Sheorani Kunwar entered as owner of half the property now to plead that she really was the owner of the whole property. In our opinion she is estopped from doing so. We therefore allow the appeal and dismiss the plaintiff's suit so far as it concerns the property entered as no. 1 in the schedule attached to the plaint, with costs in all Courts including in this Court fees on the higher scale.