DHAVAN, J. : This is a defendant's appeal from the decree of the First Additional Civil Judge, Meerut for specific performance of an agreement to re-convey a plot of laud. The facts are these. The plaintiff-respondent Ratan Lal alleged in his plaint that he entered into an agreement with defendant appellant Shree Ram by which he sold the plot of land in dispute for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and the appellant agreed to reconvey it to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- within a period of two years at the option of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, though the sale was executed on 31-03-1960 and the agreement to re-convey on 5th April, they formed parts of the same transaction. The plaintiff alleged that he exercised his option on or about the 6th February 1961 and asked the appellant to re-convey the laud to him but the latter did not turn up at the office of the Registrar. The plaintiff further alleged that the respondent was given a second opportunity to go to the office of the Registrar and fulfil his obligation to re-convey the land but he stayed away. The plaintiff sent the appellant a registered notice in reply to which the latter repudiated the agreement completely and wrote that it was not binding on him. Thereupon the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance.

2. The defendant resisted the suit. He admitted having executed the agreement to re-convey the land but he gave his own version of the circumstances in which he signed it. He alleged that the sale and the agreement to re-convey were not parts of the same transaction. According to him, the plaintiff sold the land outright to him by the sale deed of 31-3-1960 and there was no agreement for re-sale at that time; however subsequently the plaintiff approached him with a request to sign an agreement of re-conveyance so that he (the plaintiff) could assuage the feelings of his wife and son who were angry with him for having sold the land. According to the appellant, he signed the agreement only after he was assured by the plaintiff that it would remain a paper transaction and not be enforceable. The appellant also pleaded that the agreement of sale was without consideration and, therefore, void and not enforceable. Alternatively he contended that he had signed the agreement as the Karta of a Joint Hindu family and as there was no necessity to re-convey the property, the agreement was illegal for this reason too. Lastly, the appellant pleaded that the plaintiff never having offered him the amount of Rs. 15,000/- as stipulated under the agreement of re-sale was not entitled to specific performance. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective versions. The plaintiff gave evidence himself and produced the scribe who wrote out the agreement (Kishan Chand P. W. 2) and the broker who is alleged to have arranged the transaction between the parties (Radhey Shyam Nilam P.W. 3). He also produced one Dhani Ram who is alleged to have made an agreement with the plaintiff for the purchase of the land for about Rs. 45,000/-. The defendant also gave evidence and produced one Hansraj who claimed that he settled the sale transaction between the parties, and there was no agreement for re-conveyance at the time.

3. The learned Judge believed the plaintiff's version that the sale and the agreement to re-convey were parts of the same transaction and rejected the defendant's explanation for signing the agreement of 6th April 1960 as completely false. He decreed the suit for specific performance and the defendant has now come to this Court in appeal.

3A. Jagdish Swarup who argued this appeal with ability and commendable brevity, stated at the very outset that he would not press before this Court the plea that the agreement of re-conveyance was void on the ground that it had been made by the appellant as Karta of the Joint Hindu Family without legal necessity. Learned counsel stated very properly in our opinion, that it would be very difficult for him to