Moreover, the said agreement of reconveyance is left vague on vital and important points discussed above.
The said suit was decreed.
On negotiations having been held in that behalf by and between the parties, a deed of sale was executed by the appellants in favour of the respondents on 29.11.1966 for a sum of Rs.6,000/ .
By reason of the sale deed dated 29.11.1966, the respondents obtained possession of the entire suit property.
The appeal was allowed, stating To sum up, the agreement of reconveyance exhibit 31 was the part and parcel of the agreement of sale evidence by the sale deed exhibit 30 , and for want of registration the plaintiff No.
2 Pandharinath did number acquire any right on the basis of the said agreement of reconveyance.
However, on an appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondents, the First Appellate Court, inter alia, held that the appellants herein were number ready and willing to perform their part of companytract.
3 Vijayabai was number a party to the said agreement of revonveyance and it was number signed, by her.
On the same day an agreement of reconveyance was also executed in terms whereof the respondents agreed to companyvey the property back to the appellants herein after five years on receipt of the amount of companysideration specified therein.
Respondent No.
However, the said deed was registered on 17.12.1966.
In the Second Appeal filed by the appellants herein being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment, the High Court also opined that as the document of reconveyance was part and parcel of the same transaction and being companypulsorily registerable for want of registration, the same was neither admissible in evidence number enforceable through a companyrt of law.
Appellants herein were owners of land bearing Survey No.198/3/2 admeasuring 2 acres at Village Waghad.
As the respondents failed and or neglected to act in terms of the said agreement of reconveyance, a suit for specific performance was filed by the appellants herein against the respondents.
The First Appellate Court, however, rejected the companytention of the respondents that time was of the essence of companytract.
Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.24582 of 2004 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
They, being in need of money, approached the respondents.
