Subsequent purchaser protected from specific performance if bona fide for value without notice; constructive notice requires full registration proof including indexes; discretion under S.20 denies relief favoring long possessor despite plaintiff readiness.

JUDGMENT :

[Per Sarang V. Kotwal, J.]

1. Both these Appeals are decided by this common judgment because they arise out of the same judgment and decree Deshmane(PS) dated 14.1.2010 passed in Suit No.1642/1984. For convenience, the parties are referred to by their original status in the Suit. Appeal No.171/2010 is preferred by the original Plaintiff Kanchan Rohira and Appeal No.490/2010 is preferred by the original Defendant No.4 Suresh Dhoot.

2. The Suit was filed by the Plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement dated 9.1.1977 executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 Nirmal Constructions Private Limited. Initially, the suit was filed only against the Defendant No.1. However, during pendency of the Suit, the Defendant No.1 had informed the Plaintiff that the flat which was the subject matter of the agreement was already sold by the Defendant No.1 to the Defendant No.3 M/s. Ravi Overseas Corporation by an agreement for sale dated 18.11.1981. The Defendant No.2 Girish Jalani had informed that he was an employee of the Defendant No.3 and was in occupation of the said flat in that capacity. The Defendant No.3, in turn, sold the said flat to the Defendant No.4 vide agreement for sale dated 12.5.1986.

3. The Suit was filed by the Plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 9.1.1977. The learned Judge partly decreed the suit. The prayer for specific performance was dismissed but the decree was passed in terms of prayer clauses (d) and (e) which read as follows :

“(d) that in the alternative to prayer (c) above and in the event of this Hon'ble Court not granting specific performance as prayed for, the 1st Defendant be ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,52,250/- as and by way of damages in lieu of the specific performance as per particulars of damage hereto annexed and marked Exhibit 'H'.

(e) that in the alternative to prayer (c) and (d) above and in the event of this Hon'ble Court not granting specific performance or damages as prayed for, the 1st Defendant be ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of Rs.10,500/- being the sum already paid by the Plaintiff to the 1ª Defendant as advance towards the price of the said flat with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till return of the same as per particulars hereto annexed and marked Ex. 'I'.” On the amount of Rs.1,52,250/- interest was directed to be payable @ 6% P.A. from the date of decree till realisation.

4. Aggrieved by the refusal to grant decree of specific performance, the Plaintiff has preferred Appeal No.171/2010 whereas the Defendant No.4 has challenged the finding recorded by the learned Judge on the first three issues where the learned Judge has held that the Plaintiff has proved that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the obligation under the agreement of sale dated 9.1.1977; that she had proved that the notice of termination dated 30.9.1981 is illegal and b