( 1 ) BY this judgment, the following preliminary issue framed in the suit is being disposed of.

( 2 ) PRELIMINARY Issue:

" Whether the suit is not barred by res judicata in view of decision in Suit No. 28/67 affirmed finally by the Supreme Court on 17th July, 1984? (OPP)"

( 3 ) WHEN this suit was filed on 12. 3. 1980, the plaintiff was a minor and the suit on his behalf was filed through his maternal grandfather Shri Brij Raj Krishna Tandon, as his next friend. On attaining majority the plaintiff has elected to pursue the suit and the plaint was amended and the aforesaid Mr. Tandon was transposed as defendant No. 7.

( 4 ) BTINDENT = In this suit, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the decree for specific performance passed in Suit No. 28/67 by a learned Single Judge, affirmed in appeal by a Division Bench and further appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court on 14. 7. 1984, is illegal, invalid and not binding on him, besides injunction against its enforcement. By that decree suit for specific performance filed by defendant No. 1 against defendants 2 and 6 was decreed with direction to complete the sale in favour of the vendor-plaintiff in that suit. The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 in the previous suit are defendants 2 and 6 respectively Defendant No. 6 is the father and defendants 2 to 5 are the uncles of plaintiff.

( 5 ) THE facts giving rise to the earlier suit No. 28/67 are that Dr. Daya Shankar (defendant No. 3) as owner, through his Attorney and brother Shri Hari Shankar (defendant No. 2) on 27. 2. 1960 had entered into an agreement to sell property bearing No. 77, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi together with lease rights in the site in favour of Shri L. Kumar (defendant No. 1) for a consideration of Rs. 2,02,500. 00 , out of which the vendee had paid a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 by means of a cheque. The sale having not been completed the vendee had filed suit for specific performance being Suit No. 28/67 against Dr. Daya Shankar, in April, 1962. The said suit was contested by Dr. Daya Shankar. Inter alia a plea was taken by him in that suit that the property was a Joint Hindu Family property and in a partition between co-sharers it had fallen to the share of Bhawani Shankar and that the latter was in possession as owner. On this plea, Bhawani Shankar was impleaded as defendant No. 2. Bhawani Shankar is the father of the plaintiff and is defendant No. 6 in the present suit. He had filed a separate written statement denying that Dr. Daya Shankar was the Karta of the HUF or that the agreement was for the benefit of the family. He did not claim that the property belonged to the HUF. Following issues were framed in that suit :-

(1) Whether the suit property is the Joint Hindu Family or Joint property of defendants and others as alleged? O. P. Defendants

(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, whether there was any partition of the Joint Hindu Family property/joint property as alleged and the suit property has fallen to the share of defendant NO. 2 as alleged? If so, when and to what effect? O. P. Defendants

(3) Whether there was any valid agreement to sell the said property, as alleged by the plaintiff? If so, on what terms and conditions? O. P. P.

(4) Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the breach has been committed by the defendant No. 1 as alleged? O. P. P.

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance prayed for? If so, against whom? O. P. P.

(6)WHETHER the plaintiff is entitled to damages, if any, and refund of Rs. 15,000. 00 ? If so, how much? O. P. P.

(7) Relief, and against whom?

(1-A)IF issue No. 1 is proved, whether Daya Shankar was the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family and the agreement was for legal necessity, and for the benefit of the family? O. P. P.

(1-B)WHETHER Bhawani Shankar, defendant No. 2, had notice of the agreement and what is its effect on the present suit? O. P. P.

( 6 ) THE suit was contested, the parties led oral and documentary evidenc