S. MURTAZA FAZL ALI, C. J.:- These are two defendants appeals in a suit filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of a contract of sale of two shops and a house situate in Shalimar Road, Jammu. As the facts and the points arising in the two Appeals are identical, we propose to decide both the appeals by one judgment.

2. In first appeal No. 4 of-69- Harnam Singh V. Mohan Lal - the suit of the plaintiff which was based on the basis of an agreement to sell executed by Harnam Singh in favour of Mohan Lal dated 11-7-61 and 18-7-61 purporting to sell two shops and a house for Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 9,000 respectively, the plaintiff averred that the agreement was a valid one and the executant Harnam Singh agreed to execute a sale deed within one year of the date of the agreement but did not perform his part of the contract in spite of persistent demands by the plaintiff.

3. The suit was resisted by Harnam Singh defendant mainly on the ground that the agreement was void as it had been obtained by the plaintiff through fraud and undue influence. The defendant further pleaded, that the property being ancestral, there was no legal necessity to justify the sale in favour of Mohan Lal plaintiff.

4. Balwant Singh son of Harnam Singh filed another suit for injunction against the plaintiff restraining the plaintiff from getting the sale deed executed on the ground that the agreement executed by Harnam Singh in favour of his father was obtained by fraud and was not justified by legal necessity. First Appeal No. 140 of 69 arose out of the suit filed by Balwant Singh s/o Harnam Singh whereas first appeal 40 of 69 arose out of a suit filed by Mohan Lal for specific performance of the sale.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck: -

1. Whether the suit is not maintainable because of the misjoinder of causes of action? OPD

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable as the description of the suit property given by the plaintiff is insufficient? OPD

3. Whether the defendant and his son S. Balwant Singh formed a Hindu joint family. Whether the suit property with regard to which agreements were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 11th July and 18th July 1961 was ancestral and joint qua his son? OPD

4. Whether the agreements dated 11th July and 18th July 1961, were got executed, by practising fraud ? OPD

5. Whether the facts given in the agreements are incorrect, if so, with what effect? OPD

6. In case issue 3 is proved, whether the agreed sale was made for legal necessity? OPD

7. Whether the market value of the suit property is more than what has been agreed upon by the parties and as such the suit for specific performance cannot be decreed? OPD

8. Relief. OPP

Additional issue

Whether the findings recorded in the civil suit S. Balwant Singh v. Mohan Lal and others amounts to res judicata in the present case? OPD

6. The learned Judge after a careful consideration of the entire evidence and circumstances before him decided issues Nos. 1 to 4 against the defendant in the suit brought by Mohan Lal and against the plaintiff in the suit brought by Balwant Singh.

7. We have gone through the judgment of the court below and we do not see any reason to differ from the findings arrived at by the learned Judge. In fact the learned counsel for the appellant has not at all challenged the findings of the court below on the question of fraud, and has accepted the position that there is no evidence worth the name to prove that the agreements executed by Harnam Singh in favour of Mohan Lal were obtained by fraud. In these circumstances this issue was rightly decided against Harnam Singh and Balwant Singh and in favour of Mohan Lal.

8. The only point canvassed before us was regarding the question of legal necessity. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Judge had found very clearly that there was no legal necessity at all justifying the sale and on this ground alone the suit of Mohan Lal for spec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document