L N SHIVASHANKAR Vs. T HANUMANTHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third defendant is the purchaser, after the agreement of sale which sale has ended in a decree for specific performance, who is the appellant before this Court. The fact there was an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and for specific performance the suit came to be filed and ultimately the suit has been decreed by the Courts below cannot be disputed.

(2.) NOW the short question in the second appeal would be whether the appellant-third defendant is the bona fide purchaser. After the dictum of the Supreme Court that in such a situation, it is such kind of purchaser who can only prove before the Court whether their purchase is bona fide or not and they cannot be allowed to embark upon to call for adjudication on any other point. Now normally a bona fide purchaser is not expected to know the agreement. But in this case it so happened that the Sub-Registrar admitted the existence of the agreement of sale and who in turn informed the same to the appellant. Despite such information the appellant has taken the risk of purchasing the property. In fact, it is one case where the Sub-Registrar himself was examined as P. W. 3. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold in confirmation of the Courts below that the defendant 3 is not the bona fide purchaser entitled to any other benefits out of the transaction.

(3.) IN all fairness, the learned Counsel has brought to my notice the dictum of the Supreme Court in Durga Prasad and Another v Deep chand and Others, as to the form of decree that should be followed in such cases. The observation of the Supreme Court is extracted below: