A contract for reconveyance is supported by consideration if there is a promise by the intending purchasers in reconveyance to pay a sum of money and incidental and indispensable costs.

( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance instituted by the plaintiff Satyanarayan Ghosh, a major, against the first defendant Dasarath Gayen, a major and 9 other defendants of whom seven are minors represented by their natural guardian and father. The first defendant alone is the main defendant. The rest of the defendants from 2 to 10 including these minors are only pro forma defendants. The suit was decreed against the first defendant and he was called upon to execute the conveyance at the plaintiff's costs in favour of the plaintiff within one month from the date of the decree, in default of which execution the plaintiff would have it executed through the Court at his costs.

( 2 ) THE first defendant appealed to the learned District Judge who dismissed his appeal on the 24th April, 1961 and also dismissed some of the cross-objections which were not pressed. The learned District Judge confirmed the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. The appellant, the first defendant, preferred the second appeal to this Court on the 13th May, 1961.

( 3 ) FOUR main points have been argued before us in this second appeal. They are:1. That the contract for reconveyance in this case is without consideration, and therefore should not be specifically enforced. 2. That the contract for reconveyance lacks in mutuality and therefore specifically unenforceable. 3. That the contract for reconveyance was void for uncertainty and therefore should not be specifically enforced.

( 4 ) THAT the lime within which the money had to be paid in order to demand the transfer had expired under the clause contained in the contract for reconveyance. 4. On the first point that the contract for reconveyance is without consideration it is necessary to state some relevant facts. There was a sale deed in respect of the properties in suit on the 14th January, 1950 corresponding to 30th Pous 1356 B. S. Thereafter on the 16th January, 1950, corresponding to the 2nd Magh 1356 B. S. a contract for reconveyance was made. Between the date of sale and the contract for reconveyance intervened a week-end Saturday and Sunday.

( 5 ) THE main argument on the ground of consideration on behalf or the appellant has been that the deed of sale cannot be taken as a consideration for the contract for reconveyance because they were executed on different dates. The consideration by which the property was void was Rs. 8000/ -. In other words the contention for the appellant is that because Rs. 8000/- the consideration for the sale was a past consideration therefore, it could not be treated as good consideration for the contract for reconveyance. The argument suffers from a number of fallacies and cannot succeed.

( 6 ) IN the first place the agreement for reconveyance dated the 2nd Magh 1356 B. S. corresponding to the 16th January, 1950, need not call in aid the deed of sale as its consideration. The agreement for reconveyance dated the 16th January, 1950, is itself supported by consideration. That consideration is the promise by the Intending purchasers in reconveyance to pay Rs. 6000/- and incidental and indispensable costs. That promise is good enough consideration in law. That short answer completely meets the appellant's challenge to the contract for reconveyance on the ground of absence of consideration.

( 7 ) THE consideration can also be the sale deed in the facts of this case. It was on this point that the lower Courts proceeded. We are satisfied that they proceeded correctly and came to the right conclusion on the question of consideration. The facts show that such consideration was present and not past. The two deeds were presented on the same day for registration and the payment of the consideration money of Rs. 8000/- was made also on the same day. The registered numbers of these two deeds are two consecutive numbers. The date on which all these facts and events took place is the same date the 16th January, 195