(1) BUT for the fact that the valuation of the subject matter in dispute exceeded Rs. 20,000.00 this court would perhaps not have entertained this appeal for it raises no question of law (much less a substantial question of law) and the findings of fact are unassailable. (2) IT is not necessary to trace the history of the litigation in the course of which the High court remanded the matter to the trial court for amending the plaint and for adducing additional evidence in regard to certain transactions of cotton entered into between the parties. Ultimately, the dispute centres around a transaction of 1300 bales of cotton. The question has been dealt with in paragraphs 8 to II of the Judgment of the High court. We have been taken through the judgment of the High court and relevant parts of the record and we are satisfied that the view taken by the High court is unexceptionable. The appellant had purchased 1300 bales of cotton for 1/05/1948 delivery. Instead of taking delivery on due date the transaction was carried forward to the next settlement (July 1948 settlement). For carrying forward this transaction to the next settlement Rs 248.00 per khandi had to be paid to the vendor. The payment of the aforesaid amount has been proved by the entries made in the books of account maintained in the regular course of business by the plaintiffs. As a matter of fact this transaction has resulted in a profit of Rs. 17,151.40 which was credited to the original defendants account, It was contended by the original defendant that though he did not take delivery on 1/05/1948 and the transaction had to be carried forward to the next settlement, the carry forward charges payable in this connection should not have been debited to his account. This contention was rightly rejected by the High court. If the transaction had not been carried forward, the defendant would have incurred a loss for he had made purchases of 1000 out of the 1300 bales of cotton at the rate of Rs. 707.00 whereas the rate prevailing on 1/05/1948 was Rs. 682.50. The defendant has thus benefited by carrying forward the transaction and instead of incurring a loss he has made a profit of Rs. 17,151.40. The High court, therefore, rightly negatived the plea of the defendant. The appeal, therefore, must. fail. 707.00 whereas the rate prevailing on 1/05/1948 was Rs. 682.50. The defendant has thus benefited by carrying forward the transaction and instead of incurring a loss he has made a profit of Rs. 17,151.40. The High court, therefore, rightly negatived the plea of the defendant. The appeal, therefore, must. fail. During the pendency of the proceedings original defendant, Gajanan Jalan Agarwal has died and the learned Additional Judge has made it clear that Smt. Rukmini Devi (appellant herein) who was brought on record as the heir and legal representative of the deceased defendant was liable only to the extent of the assets received by her from the estate of the deceased. We wish to reaffirm that while we dismiss this appeal, the amount under the decree will be recoverable only in the aforesaid manner from the assets, if any, of the deceased Gajanan Jalan Agarwal in the hands of the appellant. Subject to this clarification, the appeals fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.