1. The respondent was one of two persons to whom the father of the appellants sold certain lands. There is nothing in the sale deed to import that the vendees took otherwise than as tenants in common and the recital of payment of half the price by each is in favour of the construction which must be put upon the instrument in the absence of any clear indications that the vendees took jointly. We agree therefore with the argument on behalf of the respondent that the interests of the vendees with reference to the covenant which under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act a vendor is in the absence of a contract to the contrary deemed to enter with the vendee were several. This covenant according to the Act runs with the land. The objection that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue without the other vendee being made a party to the suit therefore fails. Nor do we think the suit is barred by limitation inasmuch as it is brought within six years from the date of the sale to the respondent. The present case is not distinguishable from Krishnan Nambiar v. Kannan I.L.R. 21 M.P. 8 followed in the Zemindar of Vizianagram v. Behara Suryanarayana Patrulu I.L.R. 25 M. 587
2. The language of the Transfer of Property Act is 'shall be deemed to contract' (Section 55, Sub-section 2). This makes it clear that the contract so deemed to have been entered into should be taken as part and parcel of the transaction of sale and where the circumstances of the transaction require a writing registered, as embodied in such writing.
3. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.