JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract entered into with the plaintiff by-defendants 1 to 3 on their own behalf and on behalf of defendants 4 to 7. The appeal is by defendants 8 to 10 who are subsequent purchasers of the property agreed to be conveyed to the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have found that the appellants got the kobala from defendants 1 to 3 with knowledge of the agreement between them and the plaintiff. They have accordingly decreed the plaintiff's suit. But it has been argued before us on behalf of the appellants that defendants 4 to 7 were no parties to the contract and that defendant 7 was a minor; therefore the contract on their behalf could not be legally enforced. It appears that defendants 1 to 3 purported to enter into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of the property on behalf of themselves and defendants 4 to 7. They subsequently sold the property to the appellants in the same way acting on their own behalf and on behalf of defendants 4 to 7. Defendants 4 to 7 were made parties to the suit and a decree was passed against them by the trial Court. They however did not appear in the suit nor did they pr