The main legal point established in the judgment is that while there was a concluded contract between the parties and the agent had implied authority to enter into the contract, the authority should not be upheld as it was a delegation of fiduciary duties and specific performance should be refused.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Faridpur, decreeing a suit for specific performance of a contract of lease. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 are the appellants. The case of the plaintiffs, who were eleven in number, was the following: There is a jalkar mehal which is the debuttar property of defendant 1, a group of deities, of whom the shebait is defendant 2 who is the mother of defendant 3, her only son. The jalkar was under an ijara lease with defendant 4, for a period of four years and a half which was to expire in Chaitra 1336 (=April 1929). On 16th Ashar 1335 (=30th June 1928) defendant 3 on behalf of defendant 2 having announced at Goalundo Ghat that on the expiry of the said lease the jalkar mehal would be again let out in ijara for a term of five years, there was a verbal contract between him and the first four plaintiffs to the effect that the said plaintiffs would be granted the said lease at an annual rent of Rs. 6,998; that they would pay defendant 2 Rs. 10,000 as rent in advance, out of which Rs. 2,000 was to be credited against the rent every year; that the remainder of the amount of rent would be paid in eight specified instalments every year; and that defendant 2 would execute a potta in favour of the said plaintiffs before the puja of 1338 and the said plaintiffs would also execute a kabuliat at the same time. In pursuance of the said contract the said plaintiffs paid Rs. 2,355 in several instalments up to 22nd Kartic 1335 (=8th November 1928).

2. On 24th Aswin 1335 (=10th October 1928) defendant 3 sent to plaintiff 4 a draft of the lease through an officer of his and informed him that the documents would be executed after the puja was over. On 14th Kartic 1335 (=31st October 1928) another officer was sent by defendant 3 for purchasing the stamps and they were purchased on 16th Kartic 1335 (=2nd November 1928), the price thereof, Rs. 210, being paid by plaintiff 4 on the understanding that it would be credited against the ijara rent. Defendant 3 put off the execution of the document on one pretext or another and ultimately gave out in Aswin 1336 (=September 1929) that his mother, defendant 2, would not grant the lease. The plaintiff's case was that

defendant 3 was performing all acts of management, such as looking after, preservation and settlement, etc. of the said debuttar and other properties,

and

as a matter of fact defendant 3 was the authorized agent of defendant 2.

3. Their case further was that defendant 4, with full knowledge of the aforesaid contract and of the receipt of money thereunder got a fresh lease of the said jalkar executed in his favour by defendant 2, and that in fact it was he who had induced defendants 2 and 3 to break the aforesaid contract. Various defences were taken. Defendant 4 alleged inter alia that he was a bona fide transferee for valuable consideration. Defendant 3 pleaded that there was no concluded contract with the eleven plaintiffs but only a proposal on the part of the first four plaintiffs to take a lease from defendant 2 through him, they having asked him to recommend to her the granting of lease upon the terms alleged and having proposed to pay him Rs. 1,000 and having agreed to pay the advance rent of Rupees 10,000 before the puja of 1335 (=1928); that the said plaintiffs deposited some money but failed to pay up the entire sum of Rs. 10,000 before the puja of 1335 (=1928); that in Pous 1335 (=December 1928) the said plaintiffs asked for extension of time but he refused and asked them to take back the deposit, and in the same month defendant 2, on coming to know of the matter rebuked defendant 3 for making negotiations with the plaintiffs for the lease and asked him to return the money; and that the draft of the potta filed by the plaintiffs was not genuine.

4. Defendants 1 and 2 took the defence that defendant 3 was not an authorized agent for making such a contract; that she had no knowledge of the contract on the deposit; that w