1. This application in revision must be allowed, the decision of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bareilly, set aside, and judgment entered for the plaintiff for Rs. 500. It is a curious case. A young boy of 13 or 14 years, Ram Kishen, ran away from his father’s home at Baheri on the 9th of June, 1924. The father eventually issued a pamphlet, offering a reward in these terms : “Anybody who finds trace of the boy and brings him home, will get Rs. 500.” That is the translation that has been put to me as the correct translation, and there seems to be no substantial difference about the matter. It happened that one of these hand-bills came into the possession of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff undoubtedly had the boy’s name in his memory. On the 19th of July the plaintiff was at the dharamshala of the Bareilly Junction railway station. There he saw a boy, overheard part of a conversation, realised that the boy was the missing Ram Kishen and promptly took him to the Railway Police Station where he made a report and sent a telegram to the boy’s father saying that he had found his son. The question is whether he had not substantially fulfilled the terms offered. The hand-bill was an offer open to the whale world and capable of acceptance by any person who fulfilled the condition. The real condition of the promise in the hand-bill was. “I will pay Rs. 500 to any one who finds my son and brings him home”. I am of opinion that the plaintiff substantially performed the condition and that the judgment of the Small Cause Court is extremely artificial. In these circumstances that decision must be reversed and there must be a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 500 with costs.