JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal by Musammat. Gaindo Devi, defendant No. 2, in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale. The plaintiffs to the suit were Shanti Swarup and his two brothers. It was alleged in the plaint that Farid Pakhsh, defendant No. 1, entered into an agreement on his own behalf and on behalf of his sister Musammat Momina Bibi, for the sale of a shop in Ghaziabad for a sum of Rs. 8,150. Musammat Momina Bibi had 46 out of 173 sihams in the shop and Farid Baksh had the remaining 127 sihams. Out of the sale consideration a sum of Rs. 2,167 would be payable to Musammat Momina Bibi and the balance to Farid Bakhsh. According to the evidence of the plaintiff Shanti Swarup, the defendant Farid Bakhsh was indebted to Shanti Swarup and brothers on the basis of three promissory notes, and notice was given to Farid Bakhsh on June 8,-1932, to pay off the moneys due, under the promissory notes, and in that Connection tie deponent had to go several time's to the house of Farid Bakhsh, when it was proposed that the shop belonging to him and his sister might be purchased by Shanti Swarup. The negotiations were completed by July 15, 1932, when Farid Bakhsh received a sum of Rs. 100 as earnest money for the sale of , the shop in. question. It was agreed that a sale-deed would be executed within a few days and although in the Court below here was some controversy as to the time within which the sale-deed was to be executed, there is no such controversy before us, and it might be taken that the agreement was; that within a reasonable time the transaction would be effected.

2. Farid Bakhsh had to leave Meerut for Cawnpore on or about July 18, and on July 22, two telegrams were sent by Shanti Swarup to Farid Bakhsh, one at Meerut undone, demanding the completion of the sale-deed: The telegrams were not answered, and by July 26, 1932, the plaintiff's; came to know that Farid Bakhsh was negotiating for the sale, of, tie shop with Bhikan Lai, the husband of Shrimati Gaindo Devi, the appellant before us, and a letter was, therefore, sent to Farid Bakhsh reminding him of the contract between the plaintiffs and himself and warning him that the sale should be, completed at an early date. A copy of this notice was sent to Bhikan Lal and Hari Shanker, the son of Shrimati Gaindo Devi. A suit ( No. 109G of 1932) for the recovery of moneys due under the three promissory notes had already been instituted in the Court of the Munsif at Meerut on July 12, 1932, and in the agreement of sale which was evidenced by means of a letter sent by Farid Bakhsh to one Hargulal Singh, it was mentioned that Farid Bakhsh would take the proportionate piece in respect of his share (127 sihams) after deducting the costs and the amount of debt due under the three notes of hand to Lala Shanti Swarup and others in respect whereof Farid Baksh had come to know that a, suit had been filed. While the suit was pending, when the plaintiffs came lo know that Farid Bakhsh was resiling from his agreement, the plaintiffs tiled an application on July 28, 1932 in the suit on the basis of the promissory notes for attachment before judgment of the shop in question, and a great deal of discussion has centred round this application which we shall consider after we have narrated the other facts which have led to the institution of the present suit for specific performance. On Augusts, 1932, Musammat Momina Bibi executed a sale deed of her share of 46 sihams in the shop in favour of Shanti Swarup and others and took Rs. 2,167 as her shave of the purchase money. On August 6,1932 another notice was sent by Shanti Swarup to Farid Bakhsh which also was not replied.

3. The claim for the recovery of money on the basis of the promissory notes was decreed on August 30, 1932, and on September 1, 1932, Farid Bakhsh executed a sale deed in favour of Musammat Gaindo Devi for Rs. 6,600, and left in deposit with the vendee a portion of the consideration money for full payment to Shanti Swar