Defendants 1 and 3 are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiff’s suit was for specific performance of a contract, Exhibit P-2, dated 27th April, 1942, for sale of certain piece of land belonging to the joint family of defendants 1 and 2. This agreement though it was intended to be executed by both the defendants, was, in fact, signed only by the first defendant. The second defendant is alleged to have later entered into another agreement with the plaintiff, Exhibit P-1, dated 25th May, 1942, but the finding of the lower courts is that this is not a document which could be enforced as it has not been proved to be genuine. On the 6th August, 1942, defendants 1 and 2 sold the same property to the third defendant under Exhibit D-5 and the present suit for specific performance of the contract, Exhibit P-2, was filed, making the purchaser under Exhibit D-5 also a party.

The trial court found that the entire document, Exhibit P-2, is unenforceable because, according to the learned District Munsif, certain decisions of this Court are to the effect that the document cannot be enforced even as against the first executant. On that ground the suit was dismissed even though t