NIVRUTTI B ZAGADE Vs. TATYABA KASHINATH ZAGADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal has been filed by defendant No. 2 in the suit filed by respondent No. 1. This suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 129 of 1977 had been filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 18th August, 1977 and a declaration that the agreement of sale between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 dated 17th October, 1977 did not bind the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought possession of the suit property. The plaintiff claimed that 18th on executing the agreement of sale on August, 1977 between himself and defendant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 3,500/-, he had paid Rs.1,500/-as earnest money and had further paid two installments of Rs. 500/-each to defendant No. 1.

(2.) The trial court framed several issues. It concluded that the plaintiff had proved the execution of an agreement between himself and defendant No. 1 on 18th August, 1977. It was held that the plaintiff had also proved that he had paid Rs. 1,500/-towards the consideration for the suit lands and that he had proved that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The trial court did not accept the contention of defendant No. 2, i.e. the appellant herein, that he was a bonafide purchaser of the land for value without notice. The trial court therefore, decreed the suit and held that the 17th sale deed dated October, 1977 between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 was inoperative and invalid and, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff. The trial court further directed the plaintiff to deposit a certain sum of money before a stipulated date, to be paid to the heirs of the deceased defendant No. 1. The plaintiff was also permitted to recover the suit lands from the defendants.

(3.) Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the appellant herein filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 97/B/89 before the Additional District Judge, Baramati. The defendant No. 2 argued only one point: that he was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice and, therefore, had a right to the suit property. The defendant No. 2 did not urge any of the other points raised before the trial court. The appellate court, on consideration of the arguments canvassed before it, held that the transaction between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not in any way indicate that defendant No. 2 was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice. The appellate court has considered the circumstances in which the defendant No. 2 entered into the agreement of 17th October, 1977 with defendant No. 1. It has been found by the appellate court that defendant No. 2 was present when the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 was executed on 18th August, 1977. The trial court has, therefore, concluded that defendant No. 2 was not a bonafide purchaser for value without notice. The appellate court has also concurred with the decision of the trial court that the Visar Pavati at Exhibit 71 was bogus. The Appeal was, therefore, dismissed.