Contract held void for being uncertain.

ANANTANARAYANAN, J. :- In this appeal by the two defendants in the Court below, in a suit for enforcement of specific performance of a contract of sale, not merely are the facts not in dispute, for the most part, but the parties also contended themselves at the trial with marking the essential documents and not adducing any oral evidence. The facts are as follows :

A certain gentleman, Mr. Sri Hari Naidu, and no paternal grandmother Bhagirathi sold the suit properties to the defendants on 2-9-1948 under Ex B-1. On 9-9-1948, there was a registered agreement of reconveyance executed by the defendants (appellants) in favour of Mr. Sri Hari Naidu and three others, namely, his sister Jotni Bal, and Govindarajulu Naidu and Sudarsan Naidu (the latter two being the plaintiffs in the instant suit). The terms or the sale, dated 2-9-1948 are quite simple; that was 3 registered sale deed for Rs. 13000 in respect of the suit properties. The terms of the agreement to reconvey. Ex. A-1 are of importance and the essential clause may be set forth as follows :

"For the deed of sale executed in our favour on the 2nd day of September 1948 for Rs. 13000 in respect or the undermentioned lands, from this day after a period of 11 years and within a period of thirteen years, if any one of you amongst you (the tour persons named in the document) pay the sum of Rs. 13000 mentioned in the deed of sale, we (appellants) will execute a sale deed in his favour after a period of 11 years and within a period of 13 years. This agreement of sale will not be valid after the lapse of 13 years".

What happened subsequently was that Mr. Sri Hari Naidu, by himself, executed a registered release deed in respect of his rights under the agreement of reconveyance in favour of the two defendants (appellants) under Ex. B-2, date 13-3-1956. It has to be made explicit and clear mat this release was operative in respect of the rights of Mr. Sri Hari Naidu alone, and did not affect in any manner the rights of others named in Ex. A-1 in whose favour also the agreement of reconveyance had been executed by the appellants. For, in Ex. B-2, Mr. Sri Hari Naidu explicitly states that, in view of the consideration of Rs. 13000 paid to him, he released his rights in the agreement, and that "hereafter neither myself nor my heirs snail have any right or future claim in respect of the same."

2. Subsequently, after the expiry of 11 years and before the expiry of 13 years, the plaintiffs, who are two of the named persons in the agreement Ex. A-1 instituted the present suit for specific performance of the contract of sale, on payment of Rs. 13000. The suit was resisted by the defendants (appellants), but agreed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem.

3. The grounds urged in appeal by Mr. Raghavachari, for the appellants may be summarised as follows; Firstly, learned counsel contends that Mr. Sri Hari Naidu was the true proprietor of the properties, which were originally sold under Ex. B-1 and that they are the subject of met agreement of reconveyance under Ex. A-1. That being the case, the other persons named in Ex. A-1 such as the two plaintiffs, must be considered to be mere nominees, without any independent rights of enforcing that agreement of sale. In any event, after the execution of the release deed Ex. B-2 by Mr. Sri Hari Naidu, no further rights survived in favour of the two plaintiffs who were never the owners of the properties. It is also faintly suggested that these persons were made parties to the agreement of reconveyance, Ex. A-1, only in a nominal sense, the true agreement being in favour of Mr. Sri Hari Naidu alone. Next, it is contended, that even upon a different view of the facts of the transactions, the contract to re-convey is void for uncertainty; we shall set forth a little later the precise ground of this argument. Finally, and this is the main plea urged in the appeal, it is argued that the contract of reconveyance lacks mutuality altogether and hence though i