ANANTANARAYANAN, J. :- This appeal, which involves a very interesting question of what is claimed to be a conflict in the case law needing elucidation, arises upon the following facts. We might state, at the outset itself, that the facts are not in controversy.

2. On 7-10-1954 one A. Abdul Shukoor Sahib (plaintiff) conveyed the suit property 2/74 Sydenhams Road, Periamet, Madras to the first defendant for Rs. 8000 by a registered sale-deed. The second defendant is the husband of the first defendant, claimed to be acting throughout on her behalf. The parties entered into an agreement in writing (Ex . A 1) on the same date. Under this agreement, the first defendant undertook to reconvey the same property to the plaintiff on payment of the sum of Rs. 8000 within a period of five years from 7-10-1954, it being equally agreed that the plaintiff should exercise the right of repurchase, if he desired to do so, after 7-10-1958 and on or before 7-10-1959. Admittedly, the first defendant entered into possession of the suit property.

3. The first defendant, along with the second defendant, sold the suit property to the third defendant for Rs. 8000 on 25-3-1957. It has to be carefully n