Judgement

Appeal (No. 53 of 1926) from a decree of the High Court (March 5, 1925) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput.

The respondent sued the appellants in 1920 for specific performance of an agreement entered into by their father in 1891 to recover certain purchased property in the thirtieth year from the date of purchase the respondent claimed as assignee of the benefit of the agreement.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the transaction of 1891 was an absolute sale, not a conditional sale. He held that the counterpart document did not constitute a complete contract, but only a standing offer to the vendor, incapable of assignment until accepted by a tender of the price. He therefore dismissed the suit.

On appeal the decision was reversed and a decree for specific performance made. The learned judges (Spencer and Ramesam JJ.) held that even if the transaction was not a mortgage by conditional sale, which it was not necessary to decide, a right to a conveyance arose, as there was a complete and assignable contract to reconvey.

1928. March 15, 16. Dunne K.C., Narasimham and Subba Row for the