ASGHAR ALI Vs. CHIDDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. They are aggrieved because a suit for specific performance was dismissed by the court of appeal who reversed the decree passed by the primary court.

(2.) According to the plaintiffs-appellants, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the plaintiffs' only, Said Moham-mad, who was one of the defendants in the suit, was the Bhumidhar of certain plots of land. He agreed to convey the said land to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 4,000/- and received a sum of Rupees 2,000/- as earnest money. The balance of the sale consideration was payable at the time of the execution of the sale deed which was to be completed by May, 1958, An agreement embodying the said conditions was executed by Said Mohammad on the same date. It is futher disclosed in the plaint that in contravention of the said agreement, Said Mohammad transferred the land in dispute to Chidda Khan, defendant respondent No. 1 for a sale consideration of Rs. 5000/- on Mar. 29. 1968. Plaintiffs stated that Chidda Khan obtained the conveyance in his favour with full knowledge of the fact that a prior agreement executed by Said Mohammad existed and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the conveyance of the said land in accordance with the conditions of the said agreement. According to the plaintiffs Chidda Khan was not a bona fide transferee without knowledge of the agreement in favour of the plaintiffs. In the plaint it was disclosed that the plaintiffs were in possession over the land in dispute. On the basis of these facts, it was prayed that a decree for specific performance may be passed against the two defendants directing them to convey the plots mentioned in the agreement dated Nov. 29, 1967 in favour of the plaintiffs after receiving the sale consideration of Rs. 2,000/- and in case of default, the court may execute a sale deed of the said plots in favour of the plaintiffs.

(3.) Both the defendants contested the suit. Said Mohammad did not dispute his signatures on the agreement dated 29th Nov. 1967. He, however, stated that his signatures had been taken on blank stamp papers and that the so-called agreement dated Nov. 29, 1967 was vitiated by fraud. His written statement did not disclose the circumstances in which Said Mohammad was persuaded by the plaintiffs to give his signatures on blank stamp papers. Particulars of fraud on which reliance was placed on his behalf have also not been disclosed in the written statement. On behalf of Chidda Khan, defendant-respondent No. 1, it was contended that he was a bona fide transferee for value without notice of the agreement dated Nov. 29, 1967.