Abdur Rahman, J.

1. A suit for specific performance of a contract to sell certain immovable properties exceeding Rs. 100 in value was instituted by the plaintiff. It was dismissed by the District Munsif of Nandalur on the ground that the document (Ex. A) on the basis of which it was brought was not an agreement to sell on which a suit for specific performance could be founded but a sale deed that was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. On appeal, the learned District Judge of Cuddapah did not accept this view. Having regard to the specific recitals in the document, he found it to be an agreement to sell and in the absence of any express words of conveyance he declined to hold it to be a sale deed. The plaintiffs suit was accordingly decreed. The defendant has preferred this second appeal. Since a great deal would depend upon the terms of the letter Ex. A, it may be reproduced in extenso:

To Dated 25th April 1938

Raja Sree Gubboru Subbayya Garu, son of Seshayya Garu. Afterwards: For payment of circar cists and for family necessity, I have borrowed of you Rs. 300 (three hundred only).

A-1. (For this money by the 25th May, I agree to sell the schedule mentioned prop