GOLAM MOHIT MONDAL Vs. ABDUL JALIL SEPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a decree of affirmance in a suit for specific performance of a contract of reconveyance of the suit property. The defendant No. 2 sold the suit property to the defendant No. 1 by a registered kobala dated Dec. 7, 1959 (Agrahayan 20, 1366 B. S) for a consideration of Rs. 250/- only. On the same date the defendant No. 1 executed an agreement agreeing to reconvey the same property to the vendor, his heirs or nominees if the said amount of Rs. 250/- was paid to him at a time within Kartick, 1370 B. S. The plaintiff purchased the said property with the benefit of the agreement for reconveyance from the defendant No. 2 by a registered kobala dated May 5, 1960 for consideration. The plaintiff thereafter by notice dated Sept. 14, 1963 requested the defendant No. 1 to execute the reconveyance on receipt of the sum of Rs. 250/- but the defendant No. 1 failed to execute the deed as required. Thereupon the plaintiff on deposit of the sum of Rs. 250/- in Court instituted the connected suit on Nov. 19, 1963 praying a decree in usual terms for specific performance of the contract against the defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit property.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant No. 1 who filed a written statement denying inter alia the locus standi of the plaintiff to purchase the property, as the defendant No. 2 as vendor had no subsisting interest in the property. It was further stated that the right to the reconvey was confined only to the vendor or his heirs and legal representatives and to no one else. It was further stated that the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant No. 2 interpolated the agreement by causing some words to be written in the agreement in 'tolapat'. It may be stated here that in the agreement of reconveyance, the words (vernacular omitted) ("or your nominated person") had been written after and squeezed in and above the words (vernacular omitted) ("to you or to your heirs") followed by an explanation at the bottom by the deed-writer. It was accordingly submitted that the suit should be dismissed.

(3.) The learned Munsif in a trial on evidence decreed the suit which was affirmed on appeal except in regard to cost which was disallowed. This appeal is against this decision.