JUDGEMENT

 The Court held

 The case of Gayashi Ram v. Shahabuddin a Division Bench ruling of the
Allahabad High Court, effectively answers this matter. In that case, the
sale deed included a clause stating that the vendee would not transfer the
subject matter of the sale, namely a house, to anyone other than the
vendor or his heirs by mortgage, gift, or sale, and that if the house was
transferred in violation of that term, the vendor or his heirs would have
the right to reclaim the house by paying Rs. 175A instead of the Rs. 150/-
originally received. Now, plaintiff's learned Counsel believes that the
expression solely refers to the plaintiff or his heirs, not even the cousin,
of the plaintiff as held by the District Court

 Even if the learned Counsel is correct in their assertion that defendant No.
1 has breached the covenant, this does not help the plaintiff's case
because the condition would be null and void under Section 10 of the
Transfer of Property Act. "In order to see whether there is absolute
restraint or not, one must examine the effect of all the circumstances and
find if alienation is forbidden for all practical purposes," the Allahabad
High Court ruled in Gayashi Ram. The mere potential of alienation does
not automatically exempt a case from Section 10's prohibition." With
respect, I concur with the erudite Judges' observations. On all fours, the
ratio of this ruling applies to the situation before me. The District Court's
decision that the conditions inserted in the plaintiff's sale deed in favour
of defendant No. 1 are void under Section 10 ibid. must be upheld. Even
if the condition is deemed to be proven, a breach of the condition is
irrelevant.