RAM SARAN AND ANOTHER Vs. KURIAMAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants subsequent purchasers in a suit for specific performance of contract have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 17-9-1973.

(2.) One Raghubir Singh was the original owner of some land situate in village Naithla in district Bulandshahr. He died on 15-9-1973. Defendant No. 1 Sarni Mal claiming to be the owner of the land in question under the will of Raghubir Singh dated 6-7-1973 (Est. 1) initiated mutation proceedings in the revenue courts. This was opposed by one Ram Swarup who happened to be the elder brother of the father of defendant No. 2 Ram Saran. An objection was also filed by the Gaon Sabha. Another mutation proceeding was initiated at the instance of defendant No. 2 Ram Saran, Suresh Chandra, Gopali, Damodar, Pitambar and Ishwari Prasad claiming to be the owners of the land under a will executed by the deceased. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 set up an agreement in their favour dated 16-9-1973 and ultimately obtained a sale deed from defendant No. 1 on 15-7-1974. It may be stated that after the agreement dated 17-9-1973 in favour of the plaintiffs, it was got registered on 1-1-1974. The mutation order was also passed in plaintiffs' favour in May 1974. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 17-9-1973 impleading Sarni Mal as defendant No. 1 and the subsequent purchasers who are appellants herein, as defendants 2 and 3.

(3.) The suit was resisted only by defendants 2 and 3. Defendant No. 1 preferred not to file any written statement and he also did not appear as a witness from either side. The main line of defence was that there was a previous unregistered agreement dated 16-9-1973 executed by Sarni Mal in favour of Mahabir Prasad in pursuance of which the sale deed dated 15-7-1974 was executed in favour of both defendants 2 and 3. It was also pleaded that the defendants had no notice of the plaintiffs' agreement and that they were bona fide purchasers for value paid and thus they were protected under S. 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act.