JUDGMENT Tudball, J.
1. The facts of the cape out of which this appeal has arisen appear to be as follows. One Ram Ratan Lal obtained a decree against the defendants and in execution of that decree, he attached and sold the house which is in dispute in the present suit. It was purchased in the name of Lachman Dass, who is connected in some way with Ham Ratan Lal. It appears that after the sale, Ram Ratan Lal and the auction-purchaser had a considerable amount of difficulty in getting possession of the house from the judgment-debtors; finally on the 22nd of September 1905, a document was executed by both sides under which Ram Ratan Lal and Lachman Das transferred the ownership of this house to the defendants, while the defendants in return transferred to them their ex-proprietary rights in a certain holding. This holding included a large number of plots of land. As far as one can see the parties acted up to their words, possession of the house was given to the defendants and possession of the holding was given to Ram Ratan Lal and Lachman Das. Subsequently to this there was a difference about a grove. The defendants owned a grove and in execution of a decree the whole of the grove was attached, sold and purchased by Lachman Das. Under the decree, however, it was only a portion of the grove that ought to have been sold. The defendants thereupon brought a suit to recover possession of the excess amount which ought not to have been sold, In the course of that suit Lachman Das pleaded the exchange of the 22nd of September 1905, this grove apparently standing on one of the plots in which the defendants had held ex-proprietary rights, in that case the Court held that the transfer was an illegal transfer and was not binding on the defendants and the defendants got a decree for possession of that portion of the grove. The plaintiff, Lachaman Das has now brought the present suit for possession of the house. In his plaint he said nothing about the deed of exchange or anything else. He has come forward as an auction-purchaser and says that though formal possession was delivered to him, he has failed to obtain actual possession of the property sold and on the basis of his title as auction-purchaser lie claims possession of the house. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff has no right to re-gain possession of the house. On behalf of the plaintiff it is urged before me that he is quite willing to be put upon terms, that if he can get the house back, he would be quite willing to re-transfer the ex-proprietary holding. This was not what he stated in his plaint. The question is whether he is entitled to get back the house. It is quite clear that if he had purchased the ex-proprietary right, he would not have been entitled to recover the money by suit. The deed of the 22nd of September 1905 was practically a sale-deed, though instead of cash, property was given in exchange for property. The fact that the transaction was an exchange and not a sale makes little difference in the application of the principle on which the cases in this Court have been decided. The transfer of ex-proprietary rights is forbidden by law. The plaintiff has purchased property the sale of which he must have known was forbidden by law. The property has been handed over since by the vendor and lie is not entitled to recover back his house, much more so in the present case, because it will be impossible to re-place the opposite party in the same position in which he was before the transaction was carried out. That was ten years ago. For ten years they have been out of possession of this ex-proprietary holding and the landlord of the village would probably object to their returning as ex-proprietary tenants, they having been out of possession for so many years. The plaintiff has nobody but himself to thank and I cannot see my way to helping him. Under the circumstances I hold that he is legally not entitled to recover possession of the house. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.