K. C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) FINDING a conflict between the two Division Bench decisions of this Court reported in Sayed Abdullah v. Ahmad, AIR 1929 Allahabad 817 and Goverdhan v. Raghubir Singh, AIR 1930 Allahabad 101, a learned Single Judge has made the present reference.
(2.) THE necessary facts divorced from the details for deciding the reference are these; One Smt. Bismillah Begum was the owner of the house in dispute to the extent of one-fifth share. She transferred her share in the house to Mohammad Yasin under a registered sale deed. On that very date, Mohammad Yasin executed an agreement to reconvey under a registered instrument. Smt. Bismillah Begam assigned the right of repurchase to Zakir Husain on July 8, 1969, by means of registered deed. THEreafter, a dispute arose between Smt. Bismillah Begam, the heirs and legal representatives of Mohammad Yasin, who had purchased one-fifth share from her, and Zakir Husain, the purchaser of the right of reconveyance. THEse details are not necessary to be stated. It would suffice to mention that on attachment of the right to repurchase being made, Zakir Husain filed an objection under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter, on its dismissal, Suit No. 254 of 1970, purporting to be under Order XXI Rule 63 CPC was filed. Through this suit, he claimed declaration that he was entitled to repurchase one-fifth share in the house, which had been sold by Smt. Bismillah Begam in favour of Mohammad Yasin who had executed an agreement agreeing to reconvey the same. He asserted that by virtue of the purchase made by him from Smt. Bismillah Begam of the right of reconveyance, he had entered into her shoes. THE suit was contested on the ground that the right to repurchase was personal and this could not be assigned by Smt. Bismillah Begam. The trial court dismissed the suit but, in appeal, the learned Additional Civil Judge set aside the decree of the trial court and decreed the suit on the finding that the plaintiff Zakir Husain was entitled to a declaration that he had the right of repurchase conveyed to him on July 8, 1969, by Smt. Bismillah Begum. Aggrieved by this judgment, Second Appeal No. 978 of 1975 has been preferred in this court. The connected Second Appeal No. 247 of 1976 is between the same parties. As the point of reference does not call for reciting the facts of that case, we consider it unnecessary to mention the same.
(3.) THE question, which was argued before the learned Single Judge and was also pressed before us, was that the right to repurchase in favour of Smt. Bismillah Begam executed by the agreement dated July 18, 1966, being personal could not be assigned by her to Zakir Husain, the plaintiff-respondent. It is indisputable that an agreement to sell an immovable property is property. A contract of sale does not create any interest in or charge on the property agreed to be sold. It gives rise to a right to enforce specific performance not only against the vendor but also against a transferee from the vendor with notice of the contract. The word "Property" embraces everything which is or may be the subject of ownership, whether a legal ownership, or whether beneficial or private ownership or to which the right to propepty may legally attach. The word "property" in common parlance takes within its ambit rights, interests and also obligations. It does not only mean the thing possessed, that is, the physical corporial thing, but also rights in the physical corporial thing which are created and sanctioned by law. Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edition, has observed, thus at page 411 : "In its widest sense, the property included of a person's legal right of whatever description." In Bhairon Prasad v. Tara Devi, 1979 AWC 730, a Full Bench of this Court held that an agreement to sell is a property.;