RAMCHANDER SINGH Vs. BIBI ASGHARI BEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the petitioner. He has moved this Court in revision against an order dated 21-3-55 of Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Arrah, refusing the application of the plaintiff, purported to have been made under order 18, rule 3, C. P. C., for permission to reserve his right to adduce evidence by way of answer to the evidence produced by defendant 2.

(2.) The plaintiff on the basis of a contract for sale, alleged to have been executed by defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiff on 1-3-52, brought a suit for specific performance of contract under Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act on 2-6-52, On 7-7-52 the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint, by which he wanted a new para 6(a) to be added, and, defendant No. 2 to be added as a party to the suit, on the allegation that subsequently the plaintiff had learnt that defendant 2 was a subsequent purchaser with notice of the prior contract, and he was not a transferee in good faith. This application was allowed, with the result that defendant 2 was added as a party to the suit, and a new para 6(a) was added to the plaint. Defendant 2 filled her written statement thereafter on 12-9-52, in which she alleged that defendant 1 had executed a sale deed in her favour on 30-5-52, which was registered on 21-6-52, and that she was a transferee for value and without notice of the alleged original contract between the plaintiff and the defendant 1. On the pleadings of the parties, the court below on 21-3-55 recast the issues framed before, and one of the issues was:

(3.) Mr. D.N. Varma, appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the court below has not correctly appreciated the scope of a suit brought under Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, and, particularly, of Clause (b) of the section, He, therefore, contends that as the onus to prove that defendant 2 was a transferee for value, who had paid his money in good faith, and without notice of the original contract, was on her, the plaintiff had a right to ask the Court to permit him to reserve his right to adduce evidence in its rebuttal.