JUDGMENT : GRIFFIN, J. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of a house belonging to two brothers, Bhagwati Prasad and Chandi Prasad. They were members of a joint Hindu family and the house was joint family property. On the 5th of August, 1909, Bhagwati Prasad agreed to sell the house in suit to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 275. In January, 1910, the two brothers sold the house to the defendant Seetla Sahai, who, as has been found by the court below, had knowledge of the contract between Bhagwati Prasad and the present plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore instituted the present suit claiming against the two brothers specific performance of the contract entered into by Bhagwati Prasad on the 5th August, 1909. The court of first instance dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court has decreed it, and against that decree Seetla Sahai, vendee of the house, comes here in second appeal. The lower appellate court has found that the plaintiffs contract was prior in date to that of the sale in favour of the defendant Seetla Sahai, that Settla Sahai had notice of the prior contract, that both brothers had intended to sell the house, and that the contract with the plaintiff was more beneficial to the family, inasmuch as the plaintiff had offered a higher price for the house. It is contended that these findings were not sufficient to justify the court below in decreeing a suit of this nature. It is pointed out on behalf of the appellant that there is no finding that Bhagwati Prasad was the ‘karta’ of the family and also that there is no finding that the other brother Chandi Prasad had consented to his brother Bhagwati Prasad entering into the contract for sale or had authorized him to enter into such contract on his behalf, and it is contended that there being no complete and legal agreement on behalf of the two brothers to sell the house, the plaintiff cannot ask in this suit for specific performance of the contract entered into by one brother alone. On behalf of the respondent I am asked to infer from the judgment of the court below that that court intended to hold that Bhagwati Prasad had entered into the contract with the plaintiff with the consent and authority of his brother Chandi Prasad. On behalf of the respondent I am asked to infer from the judgment of the court below that that court intended to hold that Bhagwati Prasad had entered into the contract with the plaintiff with the consent and authority of his brother Chandi Prasad. I have set out above the principal findings of the lower appellate court, and as far as I can see that court does not appear to have intended to hold that Bhagwati Prasad did contract with the plaintiff for the sale of the house with the consent and authority of his brother. In my opinion the contract is one which should not have been enforced by the court below. There is no finding that Chandi Prasad agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff. It appears to me that the view taken by the court of first instance was the correct one. I allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the court of first instance. The defendant appellant will have his costs in all courts.