Lord Phillimore. -

This is a suit brought for the specific performance of an alleged contract to sell land. The contract is said to be contained in two documents, one stated to have been signed by the son of Defendant No. 3, who was the managing member of the Hindu family which owned the property ; the other, dated the next day, said to have been signed by the father. The suit was brought against the father and against two persons who claimed that they had purchased the property under a subsequent contract and who denied the existence and validity of the first con tract.

The Subordinate Judge found that the contract relied upon by the plaintiff was either a forgery or a fraud, and further, that it was an improvident sale which could not be supported against the other members of the family and for which, therefore, no specific performance could be decreed.

On appeal the High Court at Allaha bad came to a different conclusion. The Chief Justice and Gokul Prasad, J., held that the plaintiff had made out his case for the actual execution of the contract and that it was not an improvident sale. They further doubted whether the subse quent purchasers could raise the question of improvidenc