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

..... the defendant executed a registered resale agreement Ex. A. 1, agreeing to reconvey the property for the same price of ₹ 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 ₹ 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. Chinna Munusami Naiyakar, ILR 51 Mad 533: (AIR 1928 PC 174) for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 construction of the relevant Tamil clause. I am unable to fired that an s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... property and the section might have to he strictly construed. More importantly, it is limited to a presumption which applies to the transferor alone. I know of no principle of law, including any part of Madras Act I of 1955, which can inhibit or prevent a third party from obtaining an assignment, merely because the vendor who assigned the right to obtain a reconveyance, was also a lessee who owed some arrears. It is true that Venkataswami Naidu is not a party to the present action. But, obviously, upon the facts as stated by me, he would be estopped from claiming that his assignee could not enforce the right to reconveyance of which he took the assignment. (5) In this view, the second appeal succeeds, and the decision of the first appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X