In a suit for specific performance of a contract, the onus is upon the defendants to prove that they were transferees for value and that they had paid their money in good faith and without notice of the prior contract.

1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract D/- 16-6-1969 (Ext.3) and it arises out of a judgment of affirmance.

2. It is the admitted case of the parties that the disputed land (fully described in the plaint) belonged to one Ramyaad Singh of village Quasba Maker tola Sheoji (district Saran) who was the father of defendant 1 and the husband of defendant 2. The plaintiffs case was that as his sister was married in village Quasba Maker he used to visit that village from time to time and during visits he picked out acquaintance with Ramyaad Singh. The plaintiff pleaded that in the year 1969 Ramyaad Singh was in need of money and he was unable to manage the amount without disposing of some of his lands and, therefore, he negotiated with the plaintiff for the sale of one bigha of his land to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. According to the plaintiff, the negotiation was finalised and the. plaintiff claimed to have advanced a sum of Rs. 4,000.00 to Ramyaad Singh by way of earnest money on 16-6-1969 on which date, according to the plaintiff, Ramyaad Singh executed a deed of agreement in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell one bigha of his land to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. According to the plaintiff, the said deed of agreement was executed by Ramyaad Singh in presence of his son (defendant No. 1) and Thakur Singh (defendant No. 3) of the suit. According to the plaintiff, repeated request of the plaintiff to Ramyaad Singh, to execute a sale deed in his favour in pursuance of the said deed of agreement borne no fruit and subsequently Ramyaad Singh died in the month of Magh 1375 Fasli leaving behind his son defendant No. 1 and his widow defendant No. 2 as his heirs. According to the plaintiff, he requested defendants 1 and 2 also to execute the sale deed in his favour in accordance with deed of agreement but neither defendant 1 nor defendant 2 ever cared to do so.

3. The plaintiffs case further was that he came to know that Ramyaad Singh had fraudulently executed a sale deed in favour of defendant 3 in respect of the suit land, besides other lands, without consideration in order to defeat the legal right acquired by the plaintiff on the basis of the deed of agreement in question. The plaintiffs case was that the aforesaid transfer in favour of defendant 3 did not create any right, title or interest in him and the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance of the contract as per the said deed of agreement (Ext.3), According to the plaintiff, registered notices were also sent to defendants 1 and 2 but none of them cared to reply. Hence the suit.

4. The suit was contested only by defendant 3. This defendant 3 (contesting defendant) claimed to have purchased the suit land, along with some other lands, from Ramyaad Singh by virtue of four sale deeds dated 11-8-1969 for Rs. 2,000.00 each. The defence was that he was a bona fide purchaser of the suit land for value without notice of any earlier contract for sale. The contesting defendant asserted that he was in no way affected by any deed of agreement entered into by Ramyaad Singh with the plaintiff and he further contended that the deed of agreement relied upon by the plaintiff was a forged and fabricated document created on an ante-dated stamp in order to defeat his title based on the aforesaid sale deeds. According to the contesting defendant, the plaintiff was a maternal uncle of defendant 1 and a full brother of defendant 2 and he had been set up by defendants 1 and 2 to file the suit on the basis of an ante-dated document which, according to him, was created only a few days before the death of Ramyaad Singh. On these pleas, the contesting defendants case was that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief on the basis of deed of agreement which, according to defendant, was forged and fabricated one.

5. The trial court dismissed the suit and held that Mahadnama relied upon