Arguments by appellant

Mr. Bhagirath Chandra Das, the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants has contended that
 Courts below erred in law in not holding that the document was a mortgage by
conditional sale and that, as such, the rule against perpetuity under section 14 of the
Transfer of Property Act will not apply to this case.
 the words "kot-kobala" and "khalash" in the document Ext. 3(a) indicate that it was a
mortgage by conditional sale.
 it was not necessary for the Courts below to enter into the question of intention of the
parties as there was no room for any doubt about the intention
Arguments by respondent
 defendants are bonafide purchasers for value without notice of the sale with a condition
of re-purchase, their interest is protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.
 document was an out and out sale deed and not a mortgage by conditional sale, that the
covenant for re-purchase was a personal covenant and did not run with the land and that
the covenant of repurchase unlimited in point of time offended the rule against perpetuity
under section 14 of the Transfer of property Act.
 At the top of the document there is mention of, "kot-kabala", but in the body of the
document it is described as "Bhumi Bikroy Nirdhai kobala patra". It is also stated in it
that the transferee would be entitled to mutate his name in the Sherista of the landlord,
would be entitled to enjoy the properties as his own, with the right of inheritance by his
sons, grandsons and their heirs and that he would be entitled to possess, settle etc.
 In the last part of the document, it is stated that in case the transferor or his heirs would
repay the consideration money, the sold land would be released.
 In the document of 1914 it is stated that in case the transferor or his heirs would re-pay
the consideration money, the transferee or his heirs would be bound to release the land
and that in case the land would not be released, the transferor would have the right to get
the land re-conveyed through Court. There is no mention in this document that the heirs
or successors-in-interest of transferor Muhammad Idris would have the right to get the
land re-conveyed through Court.
 Where the covenant for re-purchase is personal, the suit for re-conveyance at the instance
of the heirs of the transferor is not maintainable; if so then it would be the violation of
rule against perpetuity { Gurunath Balaji Mulalik Despande vs. Yamanava Kom Nalarav
Divan I.L.R. 25 Bombay 258}
 even if the view be taken that the covenant was not personal and that it did not Offend
against the rule of perpetuities, yet the plaintiffs would not be entitled to any relief as the
claim for re-conveyance was for a portion of the land transferred by the document of 13th
December 1914 and, as such, the suit is barred under section 17 of the Specific Relief Act
(the entire land transferred by the document of 1914 is in existence but claim has been
made for a part of the land as described in schedule Ga of the plaint)
 It has also been argued that the suit is barred by limitation. The case land is possessed by
respondents since purchase in 1925 and still now they have been in possession of the
land. So, the suit is also barred by limitation.