(1.) The question for decision in this case is, whether under the terms of the instrument, dated the 23 December 1881, the plaintiff is now entitled to recover possession of the property. It is recited therein that the property is conditionally sold, for the sum of Rs. 462 received, to the defendants, who were to enjoy the property up to the 23 December 1883. On that day, the plaintiff was entitled to pay the above sum with the value of improvements and recover possession from the defendants. Then follows the stipulation in these words, on which the defendants rely: "If we fail to pay the principal amount of this sale deed and the value of all the improvements to be made by you till then, in one lump sum in 60 years from this date, i.e., on 30 of Margashira Bahula of the year Vishu, corresponding to 21 December 1941, and redeem the property of the conditional sale...." If not redeemed even on that date, the defendants title became absolute. The contention on behalf of the defendants is, that on the plaintiff's failure to redeem on the 23 December 1883, the defendants are entitled to hold the property till the 21 December 1941, the only date on which the plaintiff could redeem and that the suit is, therefore, premature. The Judge translates the passage in dispute, which is in Canarese, thus: "We will pay on 21 December 1941, which is 60 years from now, the purchase money and improvements....," and holds that the suit is premature, as the plaintiff can redeem the property only on that date.
(2.) Taken alone, the stipulation in question apparently supports the conclusion of the Judge. But read as a whole, we are not satisfied that the Judge is right and that the Munsiff who has taken the contrary view is wrong.
(3.) It will be noticed that though the properties are stated to have been conditionally sold, it is not contended that the sale has become absolute or that the right of redemption is extinguished and, therefore, the question is whether there is any restriction placed on such right.