( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale. The suit was instituted by the plffs.-appellants, Sm. Shakuntla Devi and Sm. Om Piari, against Harish Chandra alias Ramesh Chandra, who had executed an agreement on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor brother, Brijesh Chandra, and also against Ram Gopal, who has subsequently purchased a portion of the property covered by the agreement. The agreement is dated 25-7-1940. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts on the ground that the agreement was vague and incapable of enforcement. Consequently, the plffs. have filed this appeal.

( 2 ) THE facts which led to the institution of the suit are these : Harish Chandra and Brijesh Chandra are the sons of Raj Kumar, who died in the year 1932, leaving two sons and a widow Sm. Brij rani. Raj Kumar was the owner of two houses, one situate in mohalla Bhoor in Bareilly and the other known as Kothi, in Ujhiani in the district of Budaun. After the death of Raj Kumar these houses came into the possession of Harish Chandra and his brother. The agreement, which is now sought to be enforced, after referring to the indebtedness of Raj Kumar and the necessity for the sale stated, that Haridh Chandra would apply for obtaining a certificate of guardianship of his minor brother and thereafter separate his share in the two houses from that of his minor brother. It was further stated in the agreement that, after the partition of the houses, the half share of Harish chandra would be sold and the remaining half share of his brother would be mortgaged to the plffs.-appellants. One of the relevant conditions in the deed of agreement was that the value of harish Chandras half share of the kothi in Ujhiani was settled at Rs. 2,000 and the value of the half share in the Bareilly house was assessed at Rs. 3,000. It was agreed that, if on partition, the entire Bareilly house was allotted to the share of Harish Chandra and the Kothi was allotted to the share of his brother, the price of the Bareilly house would be taken as Rs. 6,000 while that of the kothi as Rs. 4,000. Another condition in the agreement was that Harish Chandra would make an application for obtaining the certificate of guardianship in the Court of the Dist. J. of Bareilly on 26-7-1940, that is, on the day following the execution of the agreement. After obtaining the certificate of guardianship and permission for partitioning the property, a draft deed of partition was to be drawn up and if, on partition, the Bareilly house was to be allotted to Harish Chandra, it was to be sold for Rs. 6,000 if the Ujhiani Kothi was to be allotted to his share, it was to be sold for Rs. 4,000. The sale deed was to be executed on the day following the registration of the deed of partition.

( 3 ) NO application for obtaining the certificate of guardianship was filed by Harish Chandra and no deed of partition was executed. In execution of a decree in favour of Shri Ram and Co. , the bareilly house was put to sale and purchased by Shadi Lal for Rs. 200. That sale was, however, cancelled and it was again put up to sale. It was again purchased by Shadi Lal, but on this occasion for Rs. 2,000. The sale took place in December 1940 that is, about five months after the agreement. Thereafter, the house was sold to Ram Gopal (deft. 2) by Harish Ohandra and his brother as well as his mother, the decree was satisfied and the sale in favour of Shadilal was set aside.

( 4 ) THEN the present suit was filed on 2-4-1943. The plaintiffs-appellants stated the above facts and circumstances and alleged that Harish Chandra had refused to execute a sale deed in respect of his share in spite of repeated demands. Accordingly they prayed for a decree for specific performance of contract and also claimed such other relief as they were found entitled to by the court. The suit was contested by the defts. on various grounds and the validity of the agreement was also challenged.