JUDGMENT Sinha, J. - This is a Plaintiff's appeal in a suit for pre-emption. The facts are not in controversy. It is only the legal effect of the transaction which falls for consideration. 2. On the 3rd October, 1941, one Prakash sold a house and a grove for Rs. 2,000 to Ranvir and Chhotey. On the same date Ranvir and Chhotey sold to Prakasi some propertv for a sum of Rs. 4,000. This Rs. 4,000 was made up of the following items. 3. Rs. 2,000 were set off towards the sale deed executed by Prakash. Out of the remaining Rs. 2,000, Rs. 1800(sic) were set off towards the discharge of a decree held by Prakash's mother; Rs. 500 were paid before the Sub-Registrar; Rs. 100 were alleged to have been paid prior to the registration. The Courts below dismissed the suit on the finding that both the transactions amounted to a transaction of exchange. The Plaintiff has come before me in second appeal 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the we(sic) test, according to the principle laid down in Ram Badan Lal v. Kunwar Singh ,1938 A W R (H C)36 is whether Prakash was to receive Rs. 2,000 in cash, In the event of any defect in title or less of possession, or whether be would get a return of his property. In the present case, it is contended, in the event of such a contingency it was not(sic) the property, which was to be returned to the transferor but he was to be compensated by the payment of cash. 5. I entirely agree, if I may respectfully lay so, with the leaned Judges when they say at page 53 no hard and fast rule can br laid down as to when no transactions would amount to a sale or an exchange, but the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellants is, to my mind, effectively met by the plain language of Sections 54 ad 118 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 54 says: sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for price paid or promfsed Or part paid and part premised, 6. Section 118 says: When two persons mutually transfer the ownership of one thing for the ownership of another, neither thing or both things being money only, the transaction is called ''exchange'' Italics are mine. 7. Section 54 says: sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for price paid or promfsed Or part paid and part premised, 6. Section 118 says: When two persons mutually transfer the ownership of one thing for the ownership of another, neither thing or both things being money only, the transaction is called ''exchange'' Italics are mine. 7. Ranbir and Chhotey sold to Prakash certain items of property, in return for them, they did not get the whole of the consideration in cash, but only Rs. 2,000 which might be treated as cash. Even out of it, Rs. 1,400 represented the amount of the decree, which Prakash's mother held against them. The balance of Rs 2 000 was not paid in cash, but was made up by the property which Prakash himself had conveyed to Ranbir and Chhotey. It was, therefore, obvious that on the date it was entered into, the transaction was not one which could be treated as a sale. The true test, in my opinion, is furnished by the state of affairs on the data of the transaction. On that data it was an exchange with a potentially for sale, only in certain contingencies. If there was a defect of title or loss of possession, Prakash was entitled to be compensated by the cash payment of Rs. 2,000. But till the contingency happens the transaction must remain an exchange and nothing more. 8. In thick the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is right and I dismiss the appeal, but as I have come to this conclusion by a different process of reasoning, I make no order as to costs.