NALLAMILLI BULLEMMAYI Vs. MEDAPATI SATHIREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second Appeal is referred to the Division Bench by one of us (Rama Rao, J.) in view of the importance of the issues involved viz. whether the agreement for reconveyance is void for uncertainity in view of Sec. 29 of the Contract Act particularly in view of the observations ot the Supreme Court in Keshavalal V Lalbhai T Mills Ltd (1) A I R 1958 SC 512 and whether the court can consider the reasonable time for enforcing the contract.

(2.) The appellants in this appea are defendants 2 to 4. The suit is filled for directing the defendants to execute the reconveyance deed delivery of possession of the property of an extent of Ac. 0-68 cents. The property originally belonged to plaintiff and sale deed was executed on 13-4-1956 by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- and the defendant agreed to reconvey the property for consideration of Rs. 3400/- whenever the plaintiff demanded him and the defendant executed the letter in favour of the plaintiff to this effect on the same day ie., 13-4-1956. The plaintiff was ready with the money and demanded the defendant to execute reconveyance deed pursuant to the said letter and issued notice dated 1-1-1967 to the defendant and the defendant sent reply on 6-1-1977 with untrue allegations. The plaintiff also demanded the defendants through mediators before the issuance of the registered notice but the defendant refused to reconvey the said land in view of the increase of the ptice of the produce derived from the land. Therefore, the plaintiff is obliged to file the suit for directing the defendants to execute the reconveyance deed and for delivery of possession of the property. The suit is resisted by the defendants stating that the sale deed executed in favour of the 1st defendant on 13-4-1966 is an put and out sale and denied the allegation that the defendant agreed to reconvey the property whenever demanded by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3,400/- It is further stated that the letter stated to be for reconveyance in favour of the plaintiff is a forged one. The amount paid for the sale of the property was very high in the prevailing circumstances at that time and therefore there was no necessity for reconveyance and the plaintiff sold the property in full satisfaction of the debt due to the defendant. The allegation of demand for reconveyance through the mediators is denied.

(3.) The trial court as well as the lower appellate Court held that the letter of reconveyance Ex. A1 is true, valid and binding on the defendants. It is also further held that Ex. A1 is not a void document and the plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed for.