Judgment

SHAH, J. : This is an appeal with special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Madras.

2. On February 18, 1948, S. Nanjalingiah Gowder - hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff -borrowed Rs. 1,500 from K. Simrathmull - hereinafter called the defendant. On February 19, 1948 the plaintiff executed a sale deed conveying to the defendant certain land at Ootacamund together with a house standing thereon and belonging to him for Rs. 700. Two other documents were executed on the same day: (1) a deed of reconveyance (Ext. A-1) counterpart of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff which contained the following covenant:

"If you pay the sum of Rs. 1,500 within a period of two years I shall at your cost and your responsibility execute a sale in respect of the under-mentioned land and house. You shall pay the assessment for the house and the municipal tax, you shall if there is any arrears of rent pay the same prior to the sale, as per the rental deed executed by you and your father. If there is arrears of rent for six months, the aforesaid counterpart deed shall become cancelled.",

and (2) a Rent Note by the plaintiff and his father Bora Gowder in favour of the defendant agreeing to pay rent at Rs. 26-4-0 per mensem for occupation of the house and the land.

3. Rent accruing due was not paid regularly by the plaintiff and his father, and by April 1949 it was in arrears for seven months. The plaintiff sent Rs. 52-8-0 by postal money order being rent for two months, on April 20 1949, but it was not accepted by the defendant. The plaintiff then filed on November 7, 1949 a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ootacamund, for specific performance of the agreement of reconveyance contained in the deed Ext. A-1. The suit was dismissed, for, in the view of the trial Court, the conditions incorporated in Ext A-1, had not been strictly complied with, and the agreement stood cancelled. The decree of the trial Court was affirmed in appeal. But in second appeal the High Court of Madras reversed the decree and ordered specific performance.

4. The sale deed, the deed of reconveyance Ext A-1 and the rent note Ext. B-1 were undoubtedly parts of the same transaction The plea of the plaintiff that the sale deed Ext. A-l constituted a transaction of mortgage by conditional sale is inadmissible, because the sale deed and the covenant for reconveyance are contained in separate documents. Indisputably, on the findings of the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Courts, the plaintiff, has not complied with the terms of the agreement for reconveyance. The plaintiff however, submitted that the court could relieve him against the forfeiture of his rights in exercise of the court s equitable jurisdiction. The defendant submitted that the covenant for reconveyance was in the nature of a concession granted by the defendant subject to certain conditions and if the conditions were not fulfilled the right could not be enforced. On this question the trial Judge with whom the First Appellate Court agreed held that the court had no jurisdiction to relieve against the extinction of the right to demand reconveyance, because the plaintiff had failed to comply strictly with the conditions of the deed. The High Court held that the equitable jurisdiction of the Court could properly be exercised in favour of the plaintiff so as to relieve him against the extinction of his right.

5. The plaintiff had sold his property to the defendant. There is now no dispute that though the sale deed was for Rs. 700, if was in satisfaction of the loan borrowed on February 18,1948 for Rs. 1,500 that the sale deed was executed. By the deed Ext. A-1 the defendant gave to the plaintiff a concession: he agreed to reconvey the house, but the exercise of the right of demanding reconveyance by the plaintiff was subject to two conditions (1) that the right must be exercised within two years, and (2) that the rent payable under Ext. B-1 and should not be in arrears for more than