Whether a provision in a sale deed that in the event of failure to construct a private college in the property sold thereunder, the property shall be reconveyed by the vendee to the vendor for the same sale consideration is barred under the provisions of Sections 10 or 11 of Transfer of Property Act? This is the question to be decided in the appeal.

2. Plaint schedule property having an extent of 1.12 acres in Sy.No.1871 of Kulathummal village originally belonged to Parameswaran Pilla, the original plaintiff. Appellants are his legal heirs. It was sold to respondent C.S.I.Dakshina Kerala Maha Idavaka for the purpose of construction of a private college under Ext.A2 sale deed on 17/3/1965 for a consideration of Rs.11,200/-. There is a clause in Ext.A2 that if by any reason a college could not be constructed, respondent vendee shall reconvey the property for the same consideration to the plaintiff assignor. Contending that no college was constructed and as provided under Ext.A2 plaintiff is entitled to get the property reconveyed by respondent and respondent is attempting to dispose the property to third parties, O.S.237 of 1984 was filed before Munsiff court, Nedumangad seeking a decree for a direction to the respondent to execute a sale deed after receiving consideration of Rs.11,200/- and also realisation of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.1,100/-. Respondent resisted the suit contending that clause in Ext.A2 to reconvey the property to the plaintiff is void under Section 10 of Transfer of Property Act and as the absolute title was transferred under Ext.A2, respondent is entitled to deal with the property as they wish and plaintiff is not entitled to compel respondent to sell the property to them for the consideration paid under Ext.A2. On the death of sole plaintiff appellants were impleaded as his legal heirs in the suit. Learned Munsiff interpreting the clause in Ext.A2 found that the said clause is not void and as property was sold to enable respondent to construct a college and respondent had agreed to reconvey the property, in the event of failure to construct the college, in view of the provisions in Ext.A2, respondent is bound to reconvey the property to appellants as legal heirs of deceased plaintiff. Therefore, a decree was granted directing appellant to deposit Rs.11,200/- before court and on such deposit directing respondent to execute a sale deed reconveying the title to appellants. Respondent challenged the decree and judgment before District court, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S.249 of 1987. Learned Additional District Judge on re-appreciation of evidence found that the clause in Ext.A2 providing for reconveying the property to the vendor is void under Section 10 of Transfer of Properties Act and as provided under Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, when under Ext.A2 respondent obtained an absolute right over the property, respondent is entitled to deal with the property without any prohibition. Appeal was allowed and the decree granted by the trial court was set aside and suit was dismissed. It is challenged in this appeal.

3. Appeal was admitted formulating the following substantial questions of law.

1) Is the finding of first appellate court that recitals in Ext.A2 that property will be reconveyed to the vendor is void under Section 10 of Transfer of Properties Act, is

sustainable.

2) Is the provision in Ext.A2 to reconvey the property to the vendor is enforceable and if so, whether findings of first appellate court is sustainable.

4. Learned counsel appearing for appellants and respondent heard.

5. Argument of learned counsel appearing for appellants is that Ext.A2 does not contain a provision prohibiting the respondent the vendee from alienating the property and it only provides that if respondent fails to construct the college, for which property was purchased, the property shall be reconveyed to the vendor for the same consideration and it cannot be taken as a clause preventing respondent from selli