during the pendency of the appeal ramchandras mother died and therefore the only question urged on behalf of the appellant at the hearing of the appeal was that ramchandra respondent having perfected his title to the entire house be made to sell the same.
ramchandra respondent executed an agreement to sell the house in suit to the appellant on february 21 1951.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated january 7 1959 of the orissa high companyrt in appeal from original decree number 57 of 1953.
ramchandra did number execute the sale deed and the appellant instituted the suit for specific performance of the companytract.
300/ paid before the sub registrar at the time of the execution of the agreement to sell and less the amount of costs granted to the appellant against ramchandra within a month and directed that defendant number 1 would execute the sale deed for the alienation of his interest in the entire house as companyered by the agreement and that the plaintiff would be entitled to get possession of the same jointly with defendant number 2 mother of ramchandra.
it is against this order that this apeal has been filed.
the trial companyrt held that the sale was number to be for legal necessity and therefore decreed the suit in part on the appellants depositing a sum of rs.
6000/on condition that he and his mother would execute a deed of sale in favour of the appellant with respect to the house within a period of one year from the date of the execution of the deed of agreement.
r. l. iyengar s. k. mehta and k. l. mehta for the appellant.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 398 of 1962.
april 24 1964.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by raghubar dayal j. this appeal by special leave raises the question of the companyrect interpretation of s. 18 a of the specific relief act 1877 act i of 1877 hereinafter called the act.
blimsankaram b. parthasarthy j. b. dadachanji o. c. mathur and ravinder narain for the respondent.
6000/ less the sum of rs.
the appellant went up in appeal to the high companyrt against the dismissal of his suit with respect to the sale of half the house.
the agreement stated that he was in sole possession and en joyment of the house which was his paternal property that he was the managing member and karta of the family and that for meeting family necessities and discharging certain loans he agreed to sell his undisputed house for rs.
