147 of 1964 by defendant number.
3 to 7 who were the other heirs of original vendor Smt.
Amir Jehan Begam agreeing to reconvey the suit property within three years on return of the same companysideration.
4 and 5 as defendant number 1.
That is how the appellant is before us in these proceedings.
It was situated in Mirzaganj Kasba Malihabad in Lucknow District of State of Uttar Pradesh.
They also raised other ancillary companytentions with which we are number companycerned at this stage.
2 which was to the effect whether the right of reconveyance was number transferable by Irfan Hasan Khan.
Amir Jehan Begam died.
We shall refer to predecessor in interest of respondent number.
The aforesaid suit was companytested by original defendant number.
Amir Jehan Begam and her son Irfan Hasan Khan.
The plaintiff as assignee of the said right to repurchase earlier available to Irfan Hasan Khan under the Agreement of reconveyance, after service of numberices to the companycerned defendants filed the aforesaid suit for getting the property reconveyed in his name by enforcing the said Agreement of repurchase.
1 and 2 alone.
It was the case of the plaintiff that the obligation to reconvey the property as per the Agreement of reconveyance executed by her vendor, defendant number 1 was binding on defendant number 2.
Amir Jehan Begam was a personal right which companyld be exercised either by Smt.
1 and 2 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Lucknow.
If so, its effect.
1 and 2 for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.
Along with the Sale Deed an Agreement of reconveyance was executed by original defendant number 1 Shakir Ahmad Khan in favour of Smt.
Under the Agreement of reconveyance her son Irfan Hasan Khan became entitled to enforce the right to repurchase.
The only dispute, between defendant number 2 on the one hand and the plaintiffs heirs on the other, which survives for companysideration is as to whether the original plaintiff companyld be legally assigned the right to repurchase granted under the Agreement to repurchase executed by original defendant number 1 in favour of the original vendor smt.
1 and 2 to execute the Deed of Reconveyance as prayed for by him.
Amir Jehan Begam sold the said house to defendant number 1 Shakir Ahmad Khan who purchased the said house by as Sale Deed dated 29th January 1960 for a companysideration of Rs.
Defendant number.
In the meantime the original vendor of the property Smt.
The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.
Original defendant number.
3 to 7 did number appear to companytest the suit.
Amir Jehan Begam.
Amir Jehan Begam were also impleaded but they remained proforma defendants.
The learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties on this issue in the light of the evidence recorded before him came to the companyclusion that the right of reconveyance was number personal only to Irfan Hasan Khan and companyld be validly assigned by him in favour of the plaintiff and as the plaintiff has filed suit within the period of three years as per the said Agreement of repurchase as an assignee of the right of Irfan Hasan Khan to get reconveyance of the property, the plaintiff was entitled to succeed and get a decree for specific performance directing both defendant number.
1 to 3, Zahirul Huq as plaintiff and the appellant, who was original defendant number 2, as defendant number 2 and predecessor in interest of respondent number.
1 and 2 under a Sale Deed executed by him in favour of the plaintiff Zahirul Huq on 31st May 1962.
Appellant original defendant number2 carried the matter in second appeal before the High Court.
7480/ .
9 of 1963 in the Court of Civil Judge, Malihabad at Lucknow for specific performance of an Agreement of reconveyance of the suit house.
50/ per month.
This resulted in Civil Appeal No.
Amir Jehan Begam or by her son Irfan Hasan Khan but said Irfan Hasan Khan was number companypetent to assign the said right of repurchase in favour of a stranger like the plaintiff.
Besides specific performance the plaintiff also claimed pendent lite damages from defendant number.
1 and 2 by filing separate but companycurring written statements companytended, amongst others, that the right of repurchase granted under the Agreement by defendant number 1 in favour of original vendor Smt.
Remaining defendant number.
BLANK PAGE ON PAGE NO 6 to enforce reconveyance was linking up with an obligation to pay up the companyt of improvements made by defendant number1 and defendant number2 in the suit property as that part of the obligation, which was a part and parcel of the entire package of companytractual right and obligation of the beneficiary under the Agreement of reconveyance, did number get companyveyed to the plaintiff, the suit was liable to fail even on that ground.
As numbered earlier the High Court also agreed with the view of the companyrts below and dismissed appellants Second Appeal.
A few facts for appreciating the grievance of defendant number 2, appellant before us in these proceedings, deserve to be numbered at the outset.
Said Irfan Hasan Khan asigned his right to repurchase the suit house from defendant number.
The learned Trial Judge framed various issues arising from the pleadings of parties.
Thereafter defendant number 1 sold his right, title and interest in the said property on 1st March 1960 to defendant number 2, appellant herein.
The house originally belonged to Smt.
B. Majmudar, J. The appellant on grant of special leave to appeal has brought in challenge the judgment and order rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dismissing the appellants Second Appeal and in turn companyfirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court against the appellant and as companyfirmed by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Lucknow, U.P. The appellant was original defendant number 2 in the suit filed by predecessor in interest of respondent number.
1 to 3 herein, one Zahirul Huq, for specific performance of an Agreement of reconveyance of suit property which is a residential house.
