Renupada Mukherjee, J. - (1.)The only question of law urged on behalf of the appellant in this appeal is whether an agreement for reconveyance of a property executed by a purchaser simultaneously with the purchase of the property can be specifically enforced on behalf of a minor.
(2.)The above question of law has arisen from the following facts and circumstances about which there is no longer any controversy. Some properties were purchased from the respondents of this appeal by appellant Rajubala Dasi by a kobala on 8th Bhadra, 1354 B. S. (corresponding to 25th August, 1947) for a consideration of Bs. 250/-. Two other documents were executed between the parties on the same day. Nidhuram Pandit, one of the vendors, executed a bharanama on the same date taking lease of the properties sold by himself and his co-sharers at a monthly rent of Rs. 2/-for a period of two years. The third document was a deed of agreement executed by purchaser Rajubala under which she agreed to reconvey the properties to the vendors if the latter returned the consideration money of Rs. 250/- within two years from the date of the sale. A contention was raised in the Courts below on behalf of appellant Rajubala that this document had been fraudulently obtained from her, and she was not aware of its contents. That contention was negatived by the Courts below, and it is no longer raised in this appeal.
(3.)Rajubala did not execute any deed of reconveyance, and so the vendors instituted Title Suit No. 218 of 1950 which was originally numbered as Title Suit No. 403 of 1949 for specific performance of the contract embodied in the deed of reconveyance after depositing an amount of Rs. 250/-. After the institution of that suit, Rajubala instituted a counter, suit for ejecting her tenant Nidhuram Pandit from the disputed properties on the ground that the term of the lease had expired. There was also a prayer for recovery of arrears of rent.