The onus of proof of good faith is on the purchaser who takes the plea of being an innocent purchaser, and the issue of good faith and shifting of onus is dependent upon the facts of each case.

1. Defendant 2nd party are the appellants in this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent of this Court. They are aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 31.1.1995 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby First Appeal preferred by the plaintiff (respondent 1st party herein) was allowed reversing the judgment and decree passed by Subordinate Judge II, Patna whereby he had dismissed the suit on contest against the defendant 2nd party and ex parte against other defendants but without costs. By the judgment under appeal, the suit for specific performance of contract has been decreed and the defendant 1st set as well as 2nd set have been ordered to execute sale deed on payment of balance consideration amount of Rs.7000/- to the defendant 1st set by the plaintiff within two months.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract for sale in respect of lands described in Schedule I of the plaint and for a direction to the respondents to execute and register the sale deed in favour of plaintiff on receipt of Rs.7000/- which was alleged to be the balance consideration money. In alternative, the plaintiff sought for a decree for Rs.41000/- which he claimed to have paid as part of consideration money to defendant 1st set, with interest, both past and pendenti lite and future and to make the said decree a charge on the suit land. A further relief was sought that sale deed dated 12.7.1995 executed by defendant 1st set in favour of defendant 2nd set for part of Schedule I land be declared illegal, collusive without consideration and not binding on the plaintiff.

3. Before considering the rival contentions relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal, it would be useful to notice the essential facts and case of the parties in brief. Plaintiffs case is to the following effect. Md. Habib the original defendant no.1, who died during the pendency of the suit and has been substituted by his heirs, the defendants 1st set, was the owner of the suit land. He allegedly suffered losses in business and was afflicted with paralysis in 1968-69. To meet his needs of money, he agreed to sell the schedule I lands measuring 4 Bighas 5 Dhurs and 5 Dhurki to the plaintiff for Rs.48000/-. On receipt of 41000/- as earnest money, he executed a Baibeyana on 12.5.1974 and agreed to execute and register the sale deed on receipt of balance consideration of rs.7000/-, by 26.12.1974. Although a time was fixed for both the parties but it was tentative and was not the essence of the contract. The plaintiff made efforts but the defendant no.1 avoided to execute the sale deed on one pretext or the other and also on the plea that an injunction order was passed on 13.6.1974 in Title Suit No.111/74 filed by one Md. Khalil. Plaintiff further pleaded that he came to know that defendant no.1 had executed and registered a sale deed dated 12.7.1975 in respect of 1 Bigha 11 Kathas and 8 Dhurs of land out of Schedule I lands for Rs.18810/- in favour of defendant 2nd set. This sale deed was alleged to be collusive and without consideration and the plaintiff alleged that defendant 2nd set had full knowledge of baibeyana deed dated 12.5.1974. Plaintiff claimed that he was always ready to perform his part of contract but the defendant no.1 avoided to honour the contract which led the plaintiff to file the suit.

4. No written statement was filed either by the original defendant no.1, Md. Habib or by his heirs, the defendants 1st set and the suit was decided ex parte against them. The defendant 2nd set (appellants herein) contested the suit by claiming that they had purchased 1 Bigha 11 Kathas 7 Dhurs of land from Md. Habib by sale deed dated 12.7.1975 for Rs.18810/-. That sale deed is genuine and for valuable consideration. These defendants claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value without any notice or knowledge of the baibeyana deed. They admitted that Md. Habib was afflicted with paralysis but they claimed that they were not aware