MADHOPRASAD Vs. HARIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal from the decree dismissing their suit for redemption.

(2.) NILKANTH , since deceased, owned 3 pies share in patti No. I of mouza Nirtoo, together with sir field No. 167.3, area 5.37 acres. He executed a deed of transfer of the said property, dated 26 -8 -1944, in favour of defendants -respondents Nos. 1 and 2. He died on 4 -3 -1946. Plaintiffs -appellants Nos. 1 and 2 are his son and widow. Defendant -respondent No. 3, his other sun, had separated from him during his life -time. He transferred half share of the property on 23 -5 -1946 to plaintiffs -appellants Nos. 3 to 5. The plaintiffs thus claim to represent the entire estate.

(3.) THE law on the subject has recently been stated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Chunchun Jha vs. Ebadat Ali : A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 345. So far as the interpretation of a document is concerned, it is well settled that if the words are express and clear, effect must be given to them and any extraneous enquiry into what was thought or intended is ruled out. If, however, there Es ambiguity in the language employed, then it is permissible to look to the surrounding circumstances to determine what was intended. Adverting to section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, as amended by Act XX of 1929, their Lordships observe -