JUDGMENT Niamatullah and Rachhpal Singh, JJ. - This is a Defendants appeal arising out of a suit instituted by the Plaintiff to recover one-half share in certain properties- Harkesh Singh, the Plaintiff in the present case, instituted a suit in 1923, against Mst. Hardei and others to recover possession of certain properties, including six houses. He was given a decree for possession over one-half share in the properties in suit in that case by this Court in 1927. After that he instituted a suit in the Court below for partition of his one-half share in the properties for which he had been given a decree in the former suit. The Defendants-Appellants are transferees of a house from Mst. Hardei under several deeds executed during the pendency and after the decision of the former suit. Their defence was that the house which they had purchased from Mst. Hardei was not included in the former litigation between her and the Plaintiff. They also raised a plea that they were protected by Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court below found that the house which the Appellants had purchased from Mst. Hardei was the subject-matter of the former suit and that the transfer in favour of the Appellants was not valid. The plea that S. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act came to the aid of the Defendants-Appellants was also not accepted by the Court below, which decreed the suit in respect of all the properties to the extent of one-half share. There were certain other Defendants in the case, who have not appealed. In the present appeal we are only concerned with the house which the Appellants purchased from Mst. Hardei and which is described in the plaint as item No. 1. 2. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants was that it was not proved that the house which his clients had purchased from Mst. Hardei was one of the properties in dispute in the suit which the Plaintiff had instituted against Mst. Hardei and others in which he got a decree for possession to the extent of one-half. In our opinion this contention cannot be accepted. Hardei was one of the properties in dispute in the suit which the Plaintiff had instituted against Mst. Hardei and others in which he got a decree for possession to the extent of one-half. In our opinion this contention cannot be accepted. In the decree which was prepared in the former suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, one of the houses in suit was described as follows: One enclosure facing the west and facing the east, together with all the inner houses, situated in Saharanpur, adjacent to the Company Garden, Muhalla Khurman bounded as given below: East... Public Road. West.... Way. South... Abchak and house of Mst. Jamuna and Harbans. North... Road. 3. The suit o; the Plaintiff for possession had been dismissed by the trial Court but was decreed in appeal by this Court. After the decree the Plaintiff obtained formal possession over one-half share in the properties which were in dispute in that case, and we find that in the warrant of delivery of possession, which is printed as Exhibit 2 at pp. 31-32, the description of the house mentioned as the first item at p. 32, tallies with the description given in the decree of the first Court as mentioned above. The Plaintiff also went into the witness-box in this case and stated that this was the house which the Defendants had purchased from Mst. Hardei during the former litigation. We, feel, therefore, no doubt that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the house in suit was included in the litigation between the Plaintiff and Mst. Hardei in the former suit is correct. It is, therefore, clear that the Appellants, who are transferees from Mst. Hardei during the pendency of and after the decision of the former suit to which she was a party acquired no valid title so far as the one-half share of the Plaintiff in it is concerned. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot help them, as they purchased the share of the Plaintiff from a person who had no right to sell the same and as they failed to establish the requirements of that Section. In our opinion, the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. The appeal, is, therefore, dismissed with costs of the Plaintiff-Respondent.