VAMAN TRIMBAK JOSHI Vs. CHANGI DAMODAR SHIMPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This litigation arises out of a transaction on September 28, 1911. On that date one Damodar Ramchandra passed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1, Shankar. By the terms of that deed there was an absolute sale of the plaintiffs property by Damodar to Shankar. On the same day the vendee Shankar passed an unregistered agreement to Damodar that he would reconvey the property to the vendor, provided the latter paid the purchase money, namely Rs. 2,000, to him within a period of eleven years. Damodar is now dead, and on May 12, 1921, his legal representatives, namely the plaintiff No. 1, his daughter and plaintiff No. 2 his widow, assigned their rights under that transaction in favour of the plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 by a registered deed of that date. On September 2, 1921, that is to say, within the period of eleven years mentioned in the agreement of September 28, 1911, the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 brought a suit to obtain specific performance of this agreement and for possession. In the plaint it is stated that the plaintiffs believed the sale transaction to be one in the nature of a mortgage. They claim that even if it is not so regarded they have a right to demand reconveyance and possession on the strength of that agreement, which has been recorded as Exhibit 12. The main contention put forward in the defendants written statement was that the agreement to reconvey, being unregistered was inadmissible in evidence. They also raised other objections which are sufficiently indicated by the issues that were framed. These are:- 1. Whether the agreement relied upon is admissible in evidence being unregistered ?

(2.) Is the suit maintainable ?

(3.) Whether the agreement is a personal contract anil heirs of Damodar are not entitled to sue under it ?