The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the document as a sale under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and the recognition of the plaintiff's charge for the unpaid purchase money under Section 55.

Somayya, J.

1. The plaintiff executed Ex. P-1 in favour of his brother, Singara Achari, on 3rd December 1929. The two were brothers find the plaintiff relinquished his share in the family properties for a sum of Rs. 150. The relevant part of this document runs thus:

In respect of the properties belonging to both of us in 108 Narayana Mangalam, Nannilam taluk, Kodavasal Sub-district, Tanjore District, and in respect of my share therein, you shall yourself take the entire properties and discharge all the debts due and recover the out standings, if any. To this effect we have agreed, and in full quit of my right for a share, it is settled that I should take Rs. 150 and as I have received the said sum of Rs. 150 by the execution of a promissory note by you this date, I have no manner of right or claim in respect of the under mentioned family properties or the debts and outstandings. To this effect I have executed this release.

2. The promissory note was transferred to one Swaminatha Pathar who filed a suit upon it and obtained a decree. The decree-holder was unable to realise any amount and he thereafter assigned his decree under Ex. P-3 on 3rd July 1942. The present suit was filed on 3rd August 1942 to recover the amount of Rs. 150 with interest claiming a charge on the property. The charge claimed is that of the in paid vendor given under the Transfer of Property Act. It is found that defendant 2 is not a bona fide purchaser who took an alienation of the property without notice of the charge if one is to be held to exist in favour of the plaintiff. The only question therefore is whether there was a charge created under the Transfer of Property Act in favour of the plaintiff and whether the suit is in time. On the first question the lower Courts have held that the document is only a release and not a sale and that therefore the provisions of Section 55, T.P. Act, are not applicable. I am unable to agree with this conclusion. The document which has been set out clearly says that in full quit of the executants right to a share he was to be paid Rs. 150. The definition of the sale contained in Section 54, T.P. Act, is satisfied in this case. Under Section 54, "sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. In the present case, a sum of Rs. 150 promised to be paid is the price. The price must no doubt be in money and that requirement is satisfied in this case. The answer would have been different if what was promised to the plaintiff under the document was some other property or something which is not money. Here, it is Rs. 150 which is the consideration and this part of the definition is therefore satisfied. Then it is said that the expression used is release and that a release is a mere relinquishment and does not operate as a transfer. It has been pointed out repeatedly by this, Court that what we have to do is to see all the terms of the document and consider whether there is not an intention that what was till then the right of the executant is being conveyed to the person in whose favour the document is executed. The word release is not conclusive. Doraiswami Pillai v. Chinnia Goundan A.I.R. 1918 Mad. 272 is in point. In that case, the plaintiff filed the suit on the footing that his father was adopted by the widow of the last male-holder. The adoption was denied by the defendants and thereupon the plaintiff armed himself with a document from a person who would be entitled to succeed to the property if the adoption of the plaintiffs father was not true or valid. The document was produced in Court and marked as Ex. R. By that document the executant released all his rights in favour of the plaintiff. It was contended that the document was only a release and not a conveyance. The learned Judges in dealing with this contention say at page 266:

By that document the heir released all his rights in favour of the plaintiff. We cannot agree with the Subordinate Judge that E