A single heir cannot maintain a suit for specific performance of a contract of re-conveyance when the contract provides for re-conveyance to the promisee or his heirs or legal representatives, as the contract does not create several promisees.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant before me.

( 2 ) THE suit, out of which this second appeal arises, was one for specific performance of a contract of re-conveyance of the disputed property.

( 3 ) THE facts which are not disputed before me, may he summarised as hereinafter appearing. On 23-5-1923, one Rostam Ali conveyed to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 agricultural land measuring 5. 22 acres, for a consideration of Rs. 1299/ -. Only two days thereafter, on 25-5-1923, there was an agreement between the vender. Rostam Ali, and the purchaser, the prede-cessor-in-interest of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 for re-conveyance of the property either to Rostam Ali or to his heirs or legal representatives, if only the consideration money was repaid either by Rostam Ali or by his heirs in the month of Chaitra of any year subsequent to the year 1333 B. S. There was a further condition in the said agreement that even if Rostam Ali and his heirs failed to repay the consideration money in one payment, even then the purchaser would re-convey such area of the land as would be proportionate to the amount paid by either Rostam Ali or his heirs. Rostam Ali died without succeeding in getting re-conveyance of the property, leaving the plaintiff, a daughter, defendants Nos. 4 to 6. his sons, defendant No. 7, his widow and defendant No. 8, another daughter, as his heirs and legal representatives under the Mahom-medan Law. After the death of Rostam Ali his heirs gave up the right to re-purchase two demarcated portions, out of the property sold, measuring 57 acre and. 61 acre, by two separate documents respectively bearing the dates the 13th Chitra. 1355 B. S. and the 13th Sravan. 1336 B. S. Thereafter defendant No. 4, one of the sons of Rostam Ali. paid a sum of Rs. 925/- to defendants Nos. 1 to 8 (heirs of the original purchaser) and got a re-conveyance in respect of 3. 725 acres of land, out of the property sold.

( 4 ) ALLEGING that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 refused to reconvey the remaining portion of the land, which had been sold to their predecessor-in-interest, defendants Nos, 4 to 6, who are the sons of Rostam Ali and defendant No. 7, who is the widow of Rostam Ali, brought a suit for specific performance of the contract for reconveyance of remaining portion of the disputed property measuring. 305 acre. That suit was numbered as Title Suit No. 180 of 1947 and was decreed and the present defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to re-convey the remaining portion of the property to the plaintiffs in that suit (namely defendants Nos. 4 to 6 and defendant No. 7 of the instant case) if a sum of Rs. 75/- was paid by the plaintiffs in that suit to the defendants in that suit within a period of one month from the date of the decree. This payment admittedly was not made and the defendants Nos. 4 to 6 and defendant No. 7 gave up the fruits of the decree by their own conduct. I need mention here that the present plaintiff was one of the pro forma defendants in that suit but took no active interest.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, on 5-10-1950, the present plaintiff, who is one of the heirs of Rostam Ali, being a daughter, brought the suit, out of which this appeal arises, claiming specific performance of the contract of re-convevance and further claiming that under that contract the defendants were bound to re-convey the remaining portion of the disputed property measuring. 305 acre.

( 6 ) THE suit was dismissed by the trial court and the decree of dismissal was also affirmed by the court of appeal below. The plaintiff lms appealed to this Court, challenging the decree dismissing her claim to specific performance.

( 7 ) THE point which weighed with the court of appeal below, in dismissing the plaintiff's suit, was that the agreement for re-conveyance being to the effect that the re-conveyance was to be made to the vendor or to his heirs and representatives, the entire body of his heirs and not only one of them was entitled