Gurusharan Sharma, J.

1. The Original plaintiff Sheikh Hussain Bux by registered mortgage deed dated 6.2.1974, Exhibit D, mortgaged 44 decimals of land of Plot No. 572 for Rs. 555/- in favour of Sheikh Rajmat. Thereafter by registered sale deed dated 15.3.1975, Exhibit B, he sold the said land for Rs. 1500/- to the original defendant, Sheikh Gaffar. Simultaneously the original defendant also executed a registered agreement, Exhibit 2 for re-conveyance thereof, on the same considerations amount, between 2032 to 2038 Sambat.

2. The defendant claimed to have redeemed the said mortgage (Exhibit D) on 2.11.1975 and paid Rs. 555/- to Sheikh Rajmat and thereafter came in possession of the said land.

3. Before expiry of the aforesaid stipulated period, the plaintiff sent registered notice to the defendant for executing necessary sale deed, after receiving the consideration amount of Rs. 1500/-. Title Suit No. 7 of 1980 was filed thereafter for directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour or in alternative for a direction to him to deposit the entire consideration amount of Rs. 1500/- in Court and the Court may execute sale deed in his favour and he may also be put in possession of the said land.

4. The defendant appeared and contested the suit, inter-alia, on the ground that Exhibit B was a mortgage and not a conditional sale deed and Exhibit 2 was not enforceable because the plaintiff had not only suppressed execution of the earlier mortgage, Exhibit D, he was also not ready and willing to pay the entire amount of Rs. 2055/- (Rs. 1500/-, being consideration amount mentioned in Exhibit B and Rs. 555/- paid to Sheikh Rajmat at the time of redemption of the mortgage).

5. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that although exhibit B was not a mortgage, but a conditional sale deed and Exhibit 2 was also enforceable, but since the plaintiff was not ready and willing to pay the total amount of Rs. 2055/-, he was not entitled to purchase the suit land from the defendant. However, the appeal against the trial courts Judgment and decree filed by the plaintiff was allowed, the trial courts judgment and decree was set aside and the defendant was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the land in question, after recovering total sum of Rs. 2055/-.

6. Against the said judgment and decree dated 7.1.1987 the present Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law :

"Whether the Court of appeal below erred in law in decreeing the suit for specific performance of the contract without recording a finding that the plaintiff has always been willing to perform his part of the contract."

7. It is true that the plaintiff suppressed the fact that the land was always mortgaged earlier and it was wrongly mentioned in the sale deed that it was free from all incumbrances, but after execution of Exhibit B, the defendant in order to get possession of the land had to redeem the mortgage first and pay the sum of Rs. 555/-to the mortgagor. It is well settled that if a sale deed of the property, subject to a mortgage charge, contains an express declaration that property was sold free from incumbrances, but it was found afterwords that there was previous charge thereon and the vendee was compelled to discharge the same in order to save the property purchased by him, from being proceeded against by previous charge, the vendor, under Section 55 (1)(g) and (2) of the Transfer of Property Act is liable to the purchaser for moneys paid by him in discharge of the previous charge and thereupon he is entitled to sue him for recovery of the amount so paid by him. In this regard, reference may be made to a decision of the Privy Council in Nathu Khan and Ors. v. Burtonath Singh, AIR 1922 Privy Council 176.

8. The aforesaid decision of the Privy Council was again reiterated in Mostt. Bhagwati and Anr. v. Banarsi Das and Ors., AIR 1928 Privy Council 98 and it was held that the said sum was paid by the