P L D 1969 Dacca 278 (PLP)

Date of hearing : 4th March 1968. , These two Second Appeals arise from two suits filed by the plaintiff‑respondent Priya Rama Barua for reconveyance of two plots of lands. The plaintiff filed O. S. No. 49 of 1959 for reconveyance of '19 decimals of land sold to the defendant -appellant Piyari Mohan Barua. At the time the conveyance to Piyari Mohan there was an agreement, Exh. A (1), by Piyari Mohan to reconvey the land within six years, after the stipulated period of one year. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged that she called upon the defendant to reconvey the land on 13‑4‑54 but he failed to do so and she prayed for a direction on the defendant to reconvey the land and to accept the kabala money of Rs. 200,00 and failing the defendant's executing the sale‑document to have the same executed through the Court. The said Priya Rama filed another suit being O. S. Suit No. 52 of 1959 on 23‑4‑59 based on a similar transaction with respect to ‑22 decimals of lands. There was the agreement for reconveyance, Exh. A, dated 8‑5‑52 and the term was five years after the stipulated period of one year. The defendant Piyari Mohan Barua in his turn filed a suit against Priya Rama Barua, number being O. S. 85 of 1959 stating that Priya Rama had agreed to sale of both the aforesaid plots of lands .19 decimals and .22 decimals. .41 decimals of lands on 2‑7‑56 and the total price was settled Rs. 954‑00 out of which Rs. 554‑00 was paid to Priya Rama on that date after deducting, Rs. 400.00 already paid to her. All the three suits were tried together and the learned Munsif decreed the suits of Priya Rama and dismissed that of Piyari Mohan. Appeals were preferred against the said decrees in which the decision of the learned Munsif was upheld. Pyari Mohan has filed these two Second Appeals against the decrees entitled by Priya Rama in her suits, but has not filed any Second Appeal against the decree passed in his suit. Mr. Siddique Ahmed Chowdhury appearing on behalf of the appellant has first argued that there was no tender of the money given to Priya Rama by Piyari Mohan. But the contract Exh. A, does not stipulate a tender of the money at the time when the vendor Priya Rama asked for reconveyance. The words in terms of agreements Exhs. A and A (1) are to the effect want to purchase that is pressing a desire to purchase. The stipulation about tender of the money is that if he failed to reconvey then she could deposit the money in Court and get the kabala executed through Court. Here the plaint shows that the plaintiff had prayed for permission to deposit the money. Therefore, this argument of Mr. Chowdhury has no sub stance. Mr. Chowdhury then argued that the suit was barred by limitation. The agreement in O. S. 49 of 1959 was dated 17‑4‑53 and the suit was filed on 16‑4‑1959 Mr. Chowdhury argued that the terms of the agreement which were as follows during the period of one year and thereafter within six years that is after the stipulated period of one year and within six years give the limita tion only for six years. But the word "After" clearly shows that after the stipulated period of one year the vendor would get six years time. Therefore this contention of Mr. Chowdhury has no substance. The same terms were applied in the other suit and would give the vendor a limitation of one year plus 5 years, that is, 6 years. In this case the offer to repurchase was made on 8‑4‑57, which is well within time and the suit itself was filed on 23‑4‑59 that is in accordance with the provisions of Article 113 of the Limitation Act. This contention of Mr. also has no substance. In the circumstances the appeals are dismissed with costs. The plaintiff Priya Rama would be entitled to recover mesne profits admissible under the law. Leave to appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent as asked by Mr. Chowdhury is refused as there is no ground fit for such an appeal involved in this case. S. A. H. Appeals dismissed.