A VEDA MURTHI MUDALIAR Vs. JWALAPURAM RAGAVACHARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are unable to accept the finding of the District Judge that the 1 plaintiff is the only person interested in the contract. The agreement to sell, Ex. A, expressly states that the contract is in favour of the 1 plaintiff and others. The case for the 1st. plaintiff is that the others referred to in the document, are the 2nd and 3 plaintiffs. The case for the contesting defendant is that by others were intended the other plaintiffs, the 6 defendant and 20 other villagers. The only evidence is that of 1 plaintiff and 1 defendant. The 1 plaintiff says that the others means 2 and 3 plaintiffs, and the 1 defendant in his evidence says that others means 2nd and 3 plaintiffs, 6 defendant and 20 others. The 6 defendant in his written statement also says so. Haying regard to the terms of the document, the written statement, and the evidence in this case, we find it difficult to see how the court can find that the 1st plaintiff was solely interested in the contract or how a decree can be passed in favour of the 1 plaintiff alone.

(2.) It is argued by the appellant's Vakil that evidence is not admissible to show who are meant by the term "others" and that the contract is therefore unenforceable. Where a vendor agrees to sell land to several named persons and in drawing up the agreement of sale the name of one person is mentioned and without naming the rest the word "others" is used, we can find nothing in the Evidence Act to prevent evidence from being let in as to the persons in whose favour the conveyance is to be executed. We do not think that any of the provisions of Section 91 or 92 are contravened nor does the case fall within Secs.93 to 97 of the Evidence Act.

(3.) As there is no dispute that the three plaintiffs are interested and as the only point in issue as regards parties is whether the 6 defendant and 20 others are also interested, the lower court was wrong in passing a decree in favour of the 1 plaintiff alone.