JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, J.:—These appeals by grant of special leave are directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 24-1-1979.

2. Abdul Salam and his mother Razia Begum sold their agricultural lands measuring 3 acres and 25 acres respectively by executing two sale deeds Exhibits A. 2 and A. 1 dated 17-4-1962 in favour of Satyanarayana Rao and his father Mahadeva Rao. The consideration of the respective sale deeds was Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 75,000/-, On the same day, both the vendees took Rs. 500/- back and executed two separate agreements in favour of the respective vendors under Exhibits A. 3 and A. 4 giving a right of repurchase to the vendors at any time after 174-1969 but before 16-4-1972.

3. Thereafter, Razia Begum and Abdul Salam executed agreements of sale in favour of the appellant T.M. Balakrishna Mudaliar on 4-1-1963, for a consideration of Rupees 1,30,000/- in all. The appellant also paid an amount of Rs. 30,000/ - from time to time till April 1963 to Razia Begum and Abdul Salam towards the said agreements. For the balance of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was to be apportioned between Razia Begum and Abdul Salam, Exhibits A. 10 dated 15-4-1963 and A. 11 dated 15-3-1963 registered deeds of agreement of sale were executed by Razia Begum and Abdul Salam respectively for Rupees 87,500/- and Rs. 12,500/ -.The appellant paid further sums of Rs.4,000/- under Exhibit A. 10 to Razia Begum and Rs. 1,000/ - under Exhibit A. 11 to Abdul Salam and Exhibits A. 3 and A. 4 were handed over to the appellant. Mahadeva Rao died leaving behind his widow Pushpavathi Ammal and Satyanarayana Rao his son as his legal representatives. In view of the fact that Satyanarayana Rao and his mother Pushpavathi Ammal refused to execute the reconveyance deed, the appellant T. M. Balakrishna Mudaliar filed two suits for specific performance of the agreements of reconveyance, delivery of possession and mesne profits in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur. O S. No. 67 of 1969 was filed against Satyanarayana Rao, Pushpavathi Ammal and Abdul Salam and O.S. No. 73 of 1969 was filed against Satyanarayana Rao, Pushpavathi Ammal and Razia Begum. In O.S. No. 67 of 1969, the appellant deposited the amount of Rs. 9,900/- in the Court for payment to Satyanarayana Rao and Pushpavathi Ammal and Rs. 1600/- for payment to Abdul Salam. In O. S. No. 73 of 1969, the appellant deposited Rs. 74,500/- for payment to Satyanarayana Rao and Pushpavathi Ammal and Rs. 9,000/- to Razia Begum.

4. Both the above suits were decreed ex parte on 7-1-1974. Razia Begum and Abdul Salam did not file any application for setting aside the ex parte decree and as such the decrees passed against them became final. On an application filed by Satyanarayana Rao and Pushpavathi Ammal, the ex parte decrees passed against them were set aside and they were allowed to contest the suit. The trial court after recording the evidence decreed the suit against Satyanarayana Rao and Pushpavathi Ammal also. Satyanarayana Rao and Pushpavathi Ammal aggrieved against the judgment of the trial court filed Appeals Nos. 67 and 68 of 1975 in the High Court. The High Court by its judgment dated 24-1-1979 allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the trial court and dismissed both the suits. T. M. Balakrishna Mudaliar, the plaintiff aggrieved against the judgments of the High Court has filed the aforesaid two appeals.

5. The facts are almost admitted and there is no controversy as regards the execution of Exhibits A. 4 and A. 3 - the deeds of reconveyance by Satyanarayana Rao and Mahadeva Rao in favour of Razia Begum and Abdul Salam respectively and Exhibits A. 10 and A. 11, registered deeds of agreement of sale by Razia Begum and Abdul Salam in favour of the appellant. The High Courts however, took the view that under the terms and conditions set out in Exhibits A. 10 and A. 11 Razia Begum and Abdul Salam had not assigned the rights of reconveyance of the properties which they had got under Exhibits A.