A decree for specific performance of a contract entered into by the karta of a joint Hindu family can be passed against the minor coparceners of the family, if the transaction is found to be warranted by legal necessity or benefit of the estate.

Jha, J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree of the Subordinate Judge at Darbhanga, dated 24th May 1946.

2. The appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement, or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession of the property in suit on the ground that the court sale of the property held on 4th March 1940, is vitiated by fraud.

3. Originally one joint family firm, Pali Ram Parma Nand, was impleaded as defendant first party, and one Ajodhya Prasad along with others was impleaded as defendant second party. On the death of Paliram on 22nd April 1945 (during the pendency of the suit) his minor son, Kiasen Lal Daruka, and other members of his family were substituted in his place and were impleaded as defendants first party. Separate written statements were filed by the members of the family of Paliram, and it is common ground that Palirams son alone is interested in the property is suit because on partition among the members of Palirams family the property in suit was allotted to Palirams share.

4. Paliram filed his written-statement and on his death his minor son, the present defendant 1, adopted the written-statement of his father. It may be stated here that the relief is claimed only against defendants first party and not against defendants second party and the contest is only by the present defendant 1, hereinafter to be referred to as the defendant.

5. The material facts of the case relevant to the points for consideration are these: Paliram was the karta of his joint family which owned the firm Pali Ram Parma Nand. Paliram obtained a money decree against the plaintiffs in the name of the firm on 22od December 1933, for a sum of about Rs. 15,000. Execution of the money decree was taken out, being Execution Case No. 12 of 1939, in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga. The property in suit measuring 71 bighas and odd was attached on 21st July 1939. An objection was taken by the defendants second party on 24th July 1539, under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C., in respect of a portion of the attached property, and was numbered, as Miscellaneous case No. 38 of 1939. It is now conceded that the defendants second party were really farzidars of the plaintiffs judgment-debtors. Another objection was taken by the plaintiffs judgment-debtors on 20th November 1939, under Sec.13, Bihar Money-lenders Act and was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 59 of 1939. While the two miscellaneous cases were pending a joint petition, dated 2nd December 1939, (Ex. 2) was filed on behalf of the contesting parties in Miscellaneous case No. 88 of 1939, praying for two weeks time on the ground that there was a talk of a compromise between the judgment-debtors and opposite parties, namely, the plaintiffs and the defendants first party in the present suit. The Court, as it appears from the order-sheet (Ex.6), adjourned the case to 9th December 1939, for hearing, and the parties were required either to file a compromise petition or come ready on the date fixed. On 7th December 1939 there was an agreement between the parties (hereinafter to be referred to as the first agreement) through the intervention of Mr. Dharnidhar (P. W. 1 examined on commission) a pleader of the Darbhanga Bar. The terms of this agreement were not, however, reduced to writing. There is difference as regards some of the terms between the plaintiffs and the defendants first party. From the evidence of Mr. Dharnidhar, who is relied upon by both parties it appears that it was settled between the parties that us. 7,500 would be paid in full satisfaction of the decretal amount and a further sum of RS. 1000 would be paid by the plaintiffs to Paliram for payment of arrears of rent in respect of the property under attachment for which three rent suits ware pending in the 1st Court of the Munsif of Darbhanga. Thus, in all, RS. 8,500 was to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants first party under the agreement, for which the pl