ISHWAR Vs. CHANDER BHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 2, who is the subsequent purchaser of the suit land, has filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 7.11.1991, has been decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit on the allegations that defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement of sale with him regarding his agricultural land measuring 21 Kanals 1 Maria for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/ -. In the said agreement, he received Rs. 20,000/ - as earnest money and agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 5.6.1992. It was averred that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and had also appeared before the Sub Registrar on 5.6.1992 for execution and registration of the sale deed with the balance price, but defendant No. 1 did not turn up. It was further alleged that during the pendency of the previous instituted injunction suit, defendant No. 1 transferred the suit land in favour of defendant No. 2 (appellant herein) by registered sale deed dated 6.11.1992 for an amount of Rs. 65,000/ -. Therefore, after serving the legal notice to defendant No. 1, the instant suit was filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) AFTER considering the evidence led by both the parties, the trial court as well as the first Appellate Court have come to the conclusion that due execution of the agreement (Ex. P1) by defendant No. 1 has been proved because defendant No. 1 himself had filed the suit for declaring the agreement (Ex. P1) null and void, but the said suit was dismissed in default on 23.4.1996. It has been further held that defendant No. 1 was having the knowledge of the instant suit, but in spite of that he did not appear to defend the suit. On the basis of these facts, it has been held that the execution of the agreement (Ex. P1) was duly proved by the plaintiff. Regarding the plea of the appellant (defendant No. 2) that he was a bona fide purchaser of the suit land, it has been held that except his statement, the appellant did not lead any evidence which establishes his plea that he was a bona fide purchaser of the suit land. It has been held that mere denial on the part of the subsequent transferee is not sufficient to prove that he had no notice of the prior agreement. The initial onus lies on him to prove that he was the bona fide purchaser of the suit land.