Back
1985 Supreme(Pat) 280
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ram Nandan Prasad, J.
Md.Mustafa
Versus
Haji Md.Isa
Appeal from Original Decree No. 953 of 1977 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 25, 1985
A bona fide purchaser for value without notice cannot be bound by any prior agreement between his vendor and the plaintiff.
Headnote:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT - SALE OF HOUSE - AGREEMENT TO SELL - GENUINENESS - BONA FIDE PURCHASERS FOR VALUE WITHOUT NOTICE - LEGAL PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff claimed specific performance of a contract for the sale of a house allegedly entered into by the original defendant and the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that he was a tenant in one of the Katras of a Pucca house belonging to the original defendant, who was his uncle. In April 1972, the original defendant expressed his desire to sell the house and eventually agreed to sell it to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 20,000. The plaintiff advanced Rs. 7,000 towards the consideration money and obtained an agreement to sell. The original defendant died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs were substituted in his place. The defendants denied the agreement and claimed that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the agreement to sell was not genuine and was not executed by the original defendant. The court also found that the defendants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the agreement.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement to sell was genuine and valid? 2. Whether the defendants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the agreement?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the agreement to sell was not genuine and valid based on the following factors: a. The evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses was not convincing. b. The presence of the plaintiff at the hotel where the agreement was allegedly executed was a peculiar coincidence. c. The scribe of the agreement was not examined by the plaintiff. d. The plaintiff failed to prove that he came into actual or constructive possession of the entire building after the execution of the agreement. e. The conduct of the plaintiff was not that of a normal and prudent holder of a Baibeyana deed. f. The endorsement on the back of the first page of the agreement and the evidence of the Stamp Vendor rendered the genuineness of the agreement doubtful. g. The expert evidence adduced by the plaintiff was not convincing. 2. The court held that the defendants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the agreement based on the following factors: a. The plaintiff was in possession of only a small fraction of the property purchased by the defendants. b. The defendants denied knowledge of the agreement and the plaintiff failed to prove otherwise. c. The defendants were not bound to make enquiries about the agreement from the plaintiff or any other tenant in occupation of a portion of the house.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and held that he was not entitled to a decree for specific performance of the contract or a refund of the consideration money.
1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgement and the decree dismissing his suit for specific performance of contract with regard to the sale of a house said to have been entered into by the original defendant 1 Haji Md. Isa and the plaintiff.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that he was a tenant in one of the Katras of a Pucca house, which stood over four decimals of land appertaining to plot Nos. 2230 and 2231 under Khata No. 721 in village Alamgirpur Phulwarisharif, a suburb of town of Patna, which belonged to original defendant 1 Md. Isa, who was his uncle. In the month of April, 1972 Haji Md. Isa expressed his desire to plaintiff Md. Mustafa to sell the house, as he was in need of some money, and eventually, after some negotiation, Md. Isa agreed to sell the house to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. As the plaintiff had not got so much fund with him at that time for getting the sale deed executed, he wanted some time and Md. Haji Md. Isa agreed to grant him some time. It is said that on 14th June, 1972 Md. Isa told the plaintiff that he urgently required Rs. 7,000.00 and so he should advance the amount to him and get a deed of agreement to sell executed by him. The plaintiff agreed. On the following day i.e. on 15-6-1972 the plaintiff advanced Rs. 7,000.00 towards the aforesaid consideration money of Rs. 20,000.00 to Haji Md. Isa, who, in turn, executed an agreement to sell on a stamped paper and delivered the same to the plaintiff. According to this agreement Md. Isa agreed to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the said house in favour of the plaintiff on payment of the balance of the consideration money by the last week of January, 1973, but he put the plaintiff in possession of the entire building at that very time in part performance of the contract. The case of the plaintiff is that he managed the balance of the consideration money and he asked Md. Isa to execute the sale deed, but he did not do, and hence the plaintiff sent a registered notice through his pleader on 7-10-1972 which was refused. In the meantime, the plaintiff learnt that the father of the minor defendants 6 and 7, namely, Arif Hussain, brought a collusive sale deed dt. 20-7-1972 into existence in the name of these defendants said to have been executed by Md. Isa. It is said that this sale deed is a fraudulent document and was brought into existence in spite of the aforesaid agreement executed by Md. Isa in favour of the plaintiff. It has also been alleged that this sale deed can have no legal effect, as it was executed without consideration and with full knowledge of the said agreement in favour of the plaintiff.
3. Original defendant 1 Haji Md. Isa had led written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiff but he died during the pendency of the suit on 20-6-1974, and his heirs, namely, respondents 1(a) and 1(b), who were substituted in. his place adopted the written statement filed by him. Defendants 2 and 3 have filed a joint written statement. The case, however, put forward in the two sets of written statement is substantially the same. The case of the defendants is that Md. Isa was in need of money and so he wanted to sell the house. It has also been admitted by Md. Isa that the plaintiff also wanted to purchase the house, but the price offered by him was too low and hence he had rejected his offer. He has denied to have agreed to sell the house to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 or to have executed an agreement in his favour in this connection. According to these defendants the agreement said to have been-executed by Md. Isa and filed by the plaintiff is a forged, fabricated and antedated document. Their further case is that Md. Isa had agreed to sell the house to defendants 2 and 3 for a sum of Rs. 24,000.00 and he actually executed a registered sale deed in their favour on 20-7-1972 after receiving the full consideration money of Rs. 24,000.00 from them. According to them, this sale
