The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of repurchase, unless clearly prohibited, is assignable or transferable under section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1963.

Judgment

D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) THE High Court of Allahabad in second appeal before it by impugned judgment dated 30. 9. 1997, concurring with the two courts below, has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant seeking specific performance of agreement of repurchase of property in dispute on the ground that under the terms of the agreement dated 4. 2. 1971, the right of repurchase was personal in favour of the original contracting parties (defendant nos. 2 to 4) and the said right was not assignable or transferable in favour of the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE only legal question involved is whether the terms of the agreement of repurchase dated 4. 2. 1971 contain any implied prohibition on the original contracting parties (particularly defendants 2 to 4) from transferring or assigning their rights in favour of third party?

( 3 ) THE relevant facts for deciding the above legal question are as under:-3. 1. Defendants 2 to 4 were bhumidars of the lands in dispute situate at village Nala, district Muzaffarnagar in the State of Uttar pradesh. On 4. 2. 1971, the owners executed registered sale-deed in favour of defendant no. 1 (contesting respondent no. 1 herein) for a consideration of Rs. 4900/ -. On the same day defendant no. 1 who had purchased the property executed an agreement for re-conveyance of the said property in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 4. The relevant terms of the agreement of repurchase dated 4. 2. 1971, on interpretation of which the parties are at variance, in its relevant parts (rendered into English) read as under: "exhibit 4 dated 4. 2. 1971 original ON STAMP PAPER OF RS. 2. 25/- whereas we, Daryao Singh son of Hardeva the first party and Surajmai, Peetam and babu sons of Rati Ram, the second party, jat, residents of village Nala Pargana kandhala, tehsil Budhana district muzaffarnagar. The party no. 2 has executed a sale deed today in favour of the party no, 1 for a sum of Rs. 4900/- in respect of 2 Bigha 7 Biswas of the land of khasra no. 95, bearing a rent of Rs. 6. 25 annually situate in khata no. 331 of village Nala, Pargana Kandhala, tehsil Budhna, district Muzaffarnagar, about which it was agreed between the parties that if the second party paid the entire consideration of the sale deed Rs. 4900/- to the first party or to the heirs of the first party within ten years from today then in that situation the first party will reconvey the aforesaid land by sale-deed in favour of the second party without any objection. If for any reason the first party does not execute a sale deed in favour of the second party, after five years but within ten years from the date of sale deed dated 4. 2. 71, then the second party will have a right to deposit the entire consideration Rs. 4900/- in the civil court and get the sale deed executed by the court, the first party will have no objection. The present agreement will be binding upon the parties and the heirs of the parties. Therefore, these few comments by way of agreement of reconveyance of sale within ten years are being written so that this document may be used when necessary. After the limitation of ten years the second party will have no right at all to get released the aforesaid and from party no. 1. "[bold by court to add emphasis]

( 4 ) UNDERTHE above terms of the agreement of repurchase defendant nos. 2 to 4 sold their rights to obtain reconveyance of sale in favour of plaintiff (present appellant) by executing a document dated 02. 6. 1977, on payment of a sum of Rs. 19,000/ -. The said document is also registered and its execution is not in dispute.

( 5 ) THE court of munsif magistrate, Kairana, distt. Muzafarnagar dismissed the suit by holding that defendant nos. 2 to 4 having already transferred their rights in the property in favour of defendant no. 1, had no right left in the property to transfer the same in favour of the plaintiff. In the opinion of the trial court the document dated 2. 6. 1977 executed in favour of the plaintiff does not amount to transfer