Judgment :- 1. This appeal and cross-objections arise from the judgment in O.S. No. 303 of 1977 which is a suit for recovery of money alleged to be in enforcement of an indemnity clause contained in a deed of sale of land. The appellants are defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 2 to 7 are the legal representatives of the deceased Dominic who together with the first defendant sold an estate to the plaintiffs. The cross-objections are filed by the plaintiffs in regard to the finding concerning two of the three heads of claim. 2. As regards two heads of claim: (l) bonus alleged to have been paid by the plaintiffs to the workers in respect of the period before the sale in the sum of Rs. 4,651.74, and (2) the expenses" alleged to have been incurred by the plaintiffs in the sum of Rs. 4,800/- by reason of the break down of a tractor sold along with the estate, the learned judge found that there was no evidence at all to support them. The suit was accordingly dismissed in respect of these two heads. Hence the cross-objections of the plaintiffs. 3. However, in regard to the claim for Rs. 4051.89 in respect of arrears of land revenue, the learned judge found that, although the plaintiffs had not produced any evidence to prove payment of the amount, the alleged amount represented the differential land tax that became payable subsequent to the sale on account of a revision of the tax with retrospective effect so as to cover the period before sale as well. The suit was decreed for this amount. Hence the defendants' appeal. 4. The indemnity clause in the sale deed reads: "...The vendors assure that all rates, taxes and revenue liable on the property described hereunder have been paid and discharged upto the date of sale. The vendors hereby covenant that there are no arrears of land revenue or any other tax in respect of the property described in the schedule hereunder and vendors hereby undertake to pay the agricultural income tax and other dues if any due by them in respect of the period of their ownership of the property described in the schedule hereunder..." 5. Ext. A7 dated 22-12-1973 which is a notice of demand shows that there was a revision of the land tax retrospectively and that a total sum of Rs. Ext. A7 dated 22-12-1973 which is a notice of demand shows that there was a revision of the land tax retrospectively and that a total sum of Rs. 9, 905.24 became due in respect of the property in question covering the period before and after the sale. Ext. A8 is a certificate issued by the Tahsildar on 14-10-1977 showing certain payments including a sum of Rs. 4052.40 which has been found by the learned judge to be the differential tax arising from the retrospective enhancement. The learned judge rightly found that the plaintiffs have not produced the best evidence concerning payment of the amounts. The receipts were not produced and the plaintiffs' books of account did not indicate payment. The best evidence on the point was, therefore, not placed before the court. However, the judge decreed the suit in respect of this amount on, what we think was, a clear misunderstanding of the legal obligation of the defendants. The judge read the indemnity clause to apply to the sum of Rs. 4052.40, for that was the amount which became payable owing to the retrospective revision in the rate. What was agreed between the parties was in regard to arrears pending or due on the date of the sale. The fact that by retrospective operation of the law what was not payable on the date of the sale became payable with effect from an anterior date by reason of a subsequent development was not a contingency or a liability which the parties had contemplated or provided for. No such intention could have been imputed to the parties, for such an implied term cannot be read into the contract, unless the contract provides some indication to that effect. In the circumstances, the clause which we have set out above leaves no room for reading into it an obligation which did not exist at the relevant time, but which, on account of a subsequent development of the law, came into effect retrospectively. The parties had not provided for any such contingency. In the circumstances, the learned judge, in our view, was in error in decreeing the suit in respect of that amount. 6. The learned judge on a proper consideration of the evidence let in by both parties held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the alleged payment of bonus to the workers or expenses for the tractor. In the circumstances, the learned judge, in our view, was in error in decreeing the suit in respect of that amount. 6. The learned judge on a proper consideration of the evidence let in by both parties held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the alleged payment of bonus to the workers or expenses for the tractor. We see no reason to interfere with that finding of the judge who has had the advantage of seeing the witnesses, watching their demeanour and appreciating the documentary evidence in the context of the oral evidence. 7. In the circumstances, we set aside the judgment and decree in regard to arrears of land revenue, but we dismiss the cross-objections. Accordingly, the suit shall stand dismissed. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. The appellants are entitled to their costs here and in the court below.