1961 (9) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....who sold it for Rs. 500 on 14-5-1951 to the defendant (respondent) on the same day the defendant executed a registered resale agreement Ex. A. 1, agreeing to reconvey the property for the same price of Rs. 500 within a period of six years therefrom to Venkataswami Naidu or his heirs. Venkataswami Naidu assigned this agreement to the plaintiff (appellant) on 25-1-1956 for a consideration of Rs. 500. As the learned Subordinate Judge himself points out, upon the authority of Narasinggerji Gyangerji v. Papuganti Parthasarthi, 1921 Mad WN 519. "a right to reconveyance of land is a property, and not a mere right to sue; and can be attached and sold;." Actually, we have the authority of the Judicial Committee itself in Sakalaguna Naidu v. Ch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s "So the plaintiff who claims under a fraudulent document which is void, cannot get any assistance from a court." Secondly, the learned Subordinate Judge refers to S. 7(1) of the Madras Act 1 of 1955, and considers that the transfer of the right of reconveyance falls within the mischief of this section. (3) It appears to me to be very clear that the first appellate court was totally erroneous in its conclusions in this matter. The only ground which seems to merit any serious consideration, in favour of the view taken by the first appellate court, is the ground that the language of the agreement of resale itself restricts the right to Venkataswami Naidu and his heirs (varsugal). I have carefully considered the language, and, the construc....