(1.) We have four appeals before us. All these four appeals arise out of proceedings under the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act. First Appeal No. 494 of 1943 is connected with First Appeal No. 51 of 1944. These are cross appeals. First Appeal No. 494 of 1943 is filed by the creditors and First Appeal No. 51 of 1944 is filed by the landlords. Both these appeals arise out of Encumbered Estates Act case No. 89 of 1936. The two other appeals are First Appeal No. 493 of 1943 and First Appeal No. 535 of 1943. Both of them are Connected appeals. They arise out of Encumbered Estate Act Case No. 88 of 1936. Both these, appeals have been filed on behalf of the creditors. First Appeal No. 51 of 1944 which is a cross appeal by the landlords, was not pressed before us and is dismissed with costs. The remaining three appeals by the creditors involve two questions.
(2.) The first question is whether the documents of transfer on the basis of which the landlords claimed relief, on a proper interpretation, constitute a transaction of conditional sale or an absolute sale with condition to repurchase. The second question that was agreed before us was that if it was construed to be a document of mortgage by conditional sale then whether the claim of the landlords, based on these documents was barred by time under Article 134, Limitation Act.
(3.) In Encumbered Estates Act Case No. 88 of 1936, the deeds of transfer in question are dated 3-3-1904, and 9-3-1904. In Encumbered Estates Act Case No. 89 of 1936, the deed of transfer in question is dated 12-3-1904. All the three deeds were executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the landlords in favour of one Abdul Hameed. The relevant terms of all these deeds are more or less identical. Hence in dealing with the question of interpretation, it will not be necessary to refer to them separately.