RAM BILAS OJHA Vs. BISHWA MUNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants (defendants 2 to 7) in all the courts below in a suit for specific performance are the appellants by special leave before us.

(2.) The first defendant (4th respondent) on receipt of a sum of Rs. 1,300/- executed a sarllat in favour of the first plaintiff with condition that the first plaintiff would enter into possession of the said plot in lieu of the interest of the debt, After some time the fourth respondent gave up his residence and moved to a different place and while so doing expressed the desire that he wanted to dispose of the plot aforesaid and made a request to the plaintiff that he should purchase the same. The first plaintiff had already entered into possession and occupied the land. After sometime the 4th respondent settled with the plaintiff for the transaction of sale in respect of that plot for a sum of Rs. 1,700/- On 2-6-1964 he received a sum of Rs. 100/- as earnest money from the plaintiffs. On 3-6-1964 the 4th respondent executed an agreement for sale also in favour of the plaintiffs. As plaintiffs had to pay an additional sum of Rs. 300/- and as plaintiffs did not have that amount plaintiffs stated that they will get the sale deed executed after payment. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants 2 to 7 who are appellants before us because of grievance against the plaintiffs, by a sale deed dated 4th June 1964 purchased the properties for a sum of Rs. 2000/-. The plaintiffs who are respondents 1 to 3 in this Court filed the suit for specific performance of their agreement for sale alleging that the sale in favour of defendants 2 to 7 appellants herein, was not bona fide and was with notice. The trial court raised certain issues. The issue relating to this question is issue No. 7 which is in the following terms: "Whether the defendants Nos. 2 to 7 are bona fide purchasers for value without notice If so its effect

(3.) The trial court answered the issue in the negative holding that as respondents 1 to 3 were in possession from 1960 it must be held that they were in possession on 4-6-64 when the sale deed in favour of the appellants was executed. The respondents" possession would have put the appellants on enquiry which if prosecuted would have disclosed a previous agreement and hence they cannot be called as transferees without notice.