JUDGMENT :- The appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance, in which it is fairly clear that the trial court came to the correct conclusion in decreeing the suit as prayed for. The matter went up in appeal to the learned Subordinate Judge who allowed the appeal and reversed the decree, but whose grounds therefor are extremely difficult to follow. Briefly stated, the facts are these. This suit property originally belonged to one Venkataswami Naidu, who is not a party to this suit, who sold it for Rs.500 on 14-5-1951 to the defendant (respondent). On the same day the defendant executed a registered resale agreement Ex.A.1, agreeing to reconvey the property for the same price of Rs.500 within a period of six years therefrom to Venkataswami Naidu or his heirs. Venkataswami Naidu assigned this agreement to the plaintiff (appellant) on 25-1-1956 for a consideration of Rs.500. As the learned Subordinate Judge himself points out, upon the authority of Narasinggerji .Gyangerji v. Papuganti Parthasarthi, 1921 Mad WN 519

"a right to reconveyance of land is a property, and not a mere right to sue; and can be attached and sold."

Actually, we have the authority of the J