on an enhancement of rcnt periodicllya for the period of 7. According to the counsd fo’r‘ the appellant since \ been compromised between the par t1 on the ground of bonéifide needs of the plaintiffsthen at this‘juncture, the plaintiffsCould not have filed the second suit for thensame reasons betxireeifthe same parties and therefore, the suit was liable to be rejected on the ground of resjudicata. The Second groundwhichwasbanked upon by the counsel for the appellantiwas that the plaintiffs have ’ m afide needs in the suit a a gt that the app, arft m itted before thC‘urt below that the eyVg e during the pendeney‘oflthe suit, two shops belongina l aihtiff was sold. If at all if the plaintiffswanted to sta X for his son 1t could have been? a t Pandrl Ba/ar or the two shops sold by tht plainymwa’lavebeenusedbythe plaintiff for their bonafide needs. For teseh reasons counsel for tht appellant submits that the order of the Court below‘ suffers material, illegality and there is sufficient evidence which has not been appreciated, therefore, the findings given is perverseiiancl w . " i deserves to be set aside. ¢ ‘the‘ 8i On the contrary, counsel fo" the respondents opposes prayerofthe plaintiffs at the ad n i on stage of the appealfand taking the Court thiouah the two Judgments passed by the tiial Court as well as the First appellate Court would emphaSis that the two Court below have in fact consid red the contentions and thc'
