BALLABHDAS Vs. HIRALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question involved in this second appeal is as regards the construction of the document sued upon. The facts giving rise to it are as follows:-

(2.) On 16-4-1943 defendants Hiralal Mannalal obtained a loan of Rs. 917/- from Gattulal and Harinarayan and executed a document in their favour whereby they transferred possession of their land consisting of 14 survey numbers situated in the village Amzera. It was agreed in the said document that the lender would enjoy the usufruct of the property for a period of nine years i. e., from Samvat Year 2000 to S. Y. 2008 (both the years inclusive), at the end of which the debtors would pay back Rs. 917/- and obtain the possesssion of the land. It was further agreed that in case they fail to make the payment as aforesaid it was open for the vendors to continue in possession of the said land subject to the same contitions and to secure there payment of their loan by getting the property sold through Court. Gattulal died after the execution of the said document and the present suit is brought by his sons plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 and Harinarayan on the allegation that the defedents performance of the contract to sell the land in their favour presumably by treating the said document as incorporating an agreement to sell the land to the plaintiffs.

(3.) Besides defendants Hiralal and Mannalal defendant Vesta was also impleaded as the third defendant because he was in possession of the property under a sub-lease created by the plaintiff No. 1.