1. In this case the last question in issue 5 seems to us to have been decided upon an erroneous view of the burden of proof. That issue runs: If so whether such contract can prevail against the defendant's sale deed? The answer to it is to be found in S. 27, Cl. (b). The contract would prevail except against a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract.
2. It is, we believe, well settled that a party pleading an exception must prove the exception. We therefore remand the case to the lower appellate Court for a decision upon the evidence upon the record of the following issues: (a) Have the defendants 1 and 2 put before the Court a prima facie case which, if unrebutted, would show that they were: transferees for value who have paid their money in good faith and without notice of the original contract and (b) If such a prima facie case has been put before the Court have the plaintiffs succeeded in rebutting it either by cross examination of the defendants or by direct evidence of their own? Let the record be-returned with the findings upon these issues before the Ester Vacation.
V.S/R.K
3. Case remanded for findings.