The principle of Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which creates a vendor's lien on the property in the hands of the buyer for the unpaid purchase price, is applicable to the Punjab State, even though it is not in terms applicable.

A. N. GROVER, J. :- This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 34,000/- with interest on the basis of a charge claimed over the property known as "Villette" Simla East which belonged to one Mr. W.G. Deeks who executed a deed of sale in respect of it in favour of the defendant on 29th September, 1947 for a total consideration of Rs. 75, 000/-. The plaintiff Bank is the Administrator of the estate of Mr. Decks who apparently had died, the Letters of Administration having been granted by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Simla, on 18th February, 1959.

2. The suit was instituted inter alia of the ground that out of the consideration, of Rs. 75,000/- for which the sale had been effected in favour of the defendant, Rs. 25,000/- had been paid by means of a cheque dated 22nd September 1947 on the Lloyds Bank Ltd., Simla, and another sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid by means of a cheque dated 29th September 1947 in the presence of the Sub-Registrar, Simla, at the time of the registration of the sale deed, leaving a balance of Rs. 25,000/- about which the stipulation in the deed was in the following words :

"* * and the balance of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) is to be paid by the vendee, to the vendor as soon as possible but at a time when the former is in a position to make the payment." The sale deed had actually been executed and got registered and possession had been delivered of the properly to the defendant before the receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 25,000/- which remained payable. It was claimed in the plaint that under the law the seller was entitled to a charge upon the property sold to the defendant for the unpaid purchase price of Rs. 25,000/- together with interest at six per cent per annum on that amount from the date of sale i.e. 29th September 1947, until payment. The total amount of interest which became due was Rs. 17,250/- till the date of the suit but put of that an amount of Rs. 8,250/- was given up being the interest for the first five years after the date, of sale. The claim in the suit was confined to the amount of Rs. 25,000/- as principal and Rs. 9,000/- as interest aggregating Rs. 34,000/-. The cause of action was stated to have arisen on 29th September 1947 from the date of execution and registration of the sale deed and delivery of possession of the property to the defendant.

3. In the written statement the defendant raised the plea of the bar of limitation and asserted that the contract sued upon was known to the vendor to be void for uncertainty and, therefore, the suit was not sustainable. It was further pleaded that, the suit contract was one contingent on the, defendant attaining the position to pay. That was an uncertain event which had yet not happened, and thus the suit was premature. It was also maintained that by an implied agreement the alleged charge sought to be enforced had been excluded. The defendant asserted that she was a benami, purchaser and that the sum of Rs. 50,000/- which had admittedly been paid to the vendor had been, paid by Shri Sohan Singh, the husband of the defendant. The only other plea which deserves notice relates to the attack on the probate proceedings which were described as not being bona fide and without jurisdiction, with the result, that the plaintiff Bank had no locus standi to sue. In the replication which was filed on behalf of the plaintiff Bank it was stated that the defendant was in a position to pay and was in possession of considerable movable and immovable property and the pleas taken up by the defendant were denied.

4. The trial Court framed the following issues :

1. Is the suit premature ?

2. Is the suit time-barred ?

3. Whether the suit is not property valued for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction ?

4. Whether the defendant is a benami purchaser and can take up this plea, if so what, effect ?

5. Whether the suit contract was known to the vendor to be void for uncertainty, is so what is the effect ?

6. Whether the alleged charge was exclud