( 1. ) THE suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the appellants, as plaintiffs, for specific performance of contract against the defendant-respondent No. 1, Laxminarayan. In the suit, they impleaded respondent no. 2, Shrimati Sumitrabai, widow of Badriprasad, as defendant No. 2, and ku. Ashabai, illegitimate daughter of Laxminarayan, as defendant No. 3. They were so impleaded in order that, in the event it was found that the contract was not enforceable against Smt. Sumitrabai, the plaintiff may get a decree for specific performance against the respondent No. 1, so far as his interest in the property in suit was concerned, with abatement of the purchase price, for partition and separate possession thereof. The 2nd Additional District Judge, Sagar, has however, dismissed the suit holding the plaintiffs to be in breach.

( 2. ) THE material facts, shortly stated, are these. By an agreement in writing dated March 23, 1967, Ex. P-1, the plaintiffs agreed to purchase and the defendant No. 1 and his father Ramanujdas agreed to sell all their right, title and interest in the property in suit, being a house in Katra Bazar, Sagar, for a consideration of Rs. 11,750, of which Rs. 1750 were paid as earnest. The date for completion was on or before May 5, 1967. In the meantime, on March 30, 1967, the defendant No. 2, Smt. Sumitrabai, acting as guardian of her minor daughter, Ku. Ashabai, defendant No. 3, served the plaintiffs with a lawyers notice, Ex. P-2, intimating that the property they intended to purchase was joint family property and was subject to the charge of maintenance of Ku. Ashabai as ordered by Criminal Court under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 3. ) ON receipt of the the notice, plaintiffs apparently met the defendant no. 1, Laxminarayan, and insisted that the defendent No. 2, Smt. Sumitrabai," should join in executing the sale deed. This is clear from the defendant No. 1s notice, Ex. P-5, to the effect- On April 11, 1967, Ramanujdas died.

( 4. ) THE plaintiffs then sat quiet for 15 days. On April 27, 1967, they addressed two notices, through their lawyer; one, Ex. P-3, to the defendant no. 2, Smt. Sumitrabai, describing her as "widow of Badriprasad", and the other, Ex. P-4, to the defendant No. 1, Laxminarayan. In their notice to the defendant No. 1, Ex. P-4, they asserted that despite his earlier assurance, on being confronted with the notice of Ku. Ashabai, that the sale consideration would be kept in deposit with a bank, and applied towards her maintenance and marriage, he was now trying to change his stand and seated- On May 5, 1967. the parties admittedly met at the Sub-Registrars Office, but the plaintiffs refused to take a sale deed from the defendant No. 1 alone. On april 6, they brought the suit for specific performance.

( 5. ) THE relationship of the defendants is given in the following geneological table-

( 6. ) THE subject matter in dispute was admittedly ancestral. In the year 1917, there was a partition in the family between Ramanujdas and Laxmandas. As a result of the partition, instead of one, two joint Hindu families came into existence, one representing the branch of Ramanujdas and the other of Laxmandas. After the death of Laxmandas, the half-share allotted to him in the partition, devolved on his son Ramgopal by survivorship. On February 8, 1947, ramgopal sold his interest in the suit house to Ramanujdas and Laxminarayan, as a result of which, the entire house came to be possessed by the joint Hindu family of which Ramanujdas was the karta. Meanwhile, Badriprasad died issueless in the year 1947, leaving behind his widow Smt. Sumitrabai, who continued to live in the ancestral house, as she had already lost her parents. Laxminarayan who was a bachelor, taking advantage of helpless condition of Smt. Sumitrabai, cast an evil eye on her, and from the year 1950 onwards, subjected her to sexual intercourse, resulting in the birth of four illegitimate daughters. She was then