R.N.Gurtu, J. - (1.) The sale-deed in this case was executed by Ram Swarup, one of the defendants appellants before us, on his own behalf and on behalf of his brother, Joti Prasad, the second appellant before us transferring certain property to Futtu, who is the plaintiff-respondent in this appeal.
(2.) The vendee was put in possession of the property. The sale-consideration paid by the vendee was Rs. 500/-. In the sale-deed, there was a covenant to the following effect : "Aur makan mubayya par mushtari ka qabza kara diya. Agra juz ya kul qabza mushtari se nikal jawe to mushtari ko ikhtiyar hoga ki zare summon mae sood wapas wasool kar le". Two sons of Ram Swarup appellant, namely, Daya Prakash and Anand Prakash, filed a suit No. 1178 of 1944 claiming that the property transferred was a joint Hindu family property and was not liable to be transferred for want of legal necessity. To that suit, they impleaded Futtu, the vendee and also their uncle, Joti Prasad as also their father. Ram Swarup, the two vendors. The last named two persons i.e. the vendors, did not contest the suit at all and did not file any written statement. The suit was ultimately compromised between Futtu and the plaintiffs of that suit; the compromise being that if Futtu paid Rs. 1,100/- to the plaintiffs of that suit within a period of six months, then the plaintiff's suit would stand dismissed and Futtu's possession over the vended property would remain undisturbed,
(3.) It appears that the sum of Rs. 1,100/- was not paid within the stipulated time but in execution proceedings there was a further compromise wherein the sum of Rs. 1,100/- was raised to Rs. 1,900/- which was paid and Futtu remained in possession of the vended property.;