SHAFIQ AHMAD Vs. SAYEEDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal.

(2.) On January 23, 1971, the respondent and her husband. Mohammad Yasin (since dead) executed a sale in favour of the appellant under registered instrument for consideration of Rs. 2,000/- in respect of a portion in dispute of the house concerned. On the same date there was a separate agreement executed in writing by the appellant in the respondent's favour stipulating that he would reconvey the property to the vendor on receipt of Rs. 2000/- within three years from the date of the agreement. The period was extended further up to December 31, 1974, by a subsequent agreement entered into on January 16, 1974 in writing. Despite notice from the vendor, the appellant did not execute reconveyance. The plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. With these allegations the plaintiffs brought the suit for specific performance on Jan. 31, 1975.

(3.) In defence the appellant admitted the execution of the deed of sale and the agreement dated 23-1-1971. In relation to the subsequent agreement, however, the plea taken was that he appended his thumb-mark under the impression that the time was being extended up to February 28, 1974. The contents of this agreement, according to him, are based upon fraud played against him, and the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs had not always been ready and willing to perform their part under the contract. It was also pleaded that he had been a tenant of this portion and due to the agreement of reconveyance executed by him the tenancy is to he considered as subsisting.