P. N. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is the defendant's second appeal, arising out of a suit for specific performance. In the view, which we are taking it is not necessary to go into any controversial question of fact, inasmuch as the case has to be remanded to the Court of appeal below for re-hearing and further consideration, as the appeal before it, out of which this instant second appeal arises appears to have been disposed of on a point of law, more or less of a preliminary nature, upon a wholly wrong view of the same.

( 2 ) THE facts, relevant for our present purpose, stand as follows : The suit property originally belonged to defendant No. 1 Padmabati. According to the plaintiffs, Padmabati agreed to sell the said property to the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, who were respectively the wives of plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4. The alleged stipulated price was Rs. 599/- and the agreement in Question was stated to have been made on January 27, 1950, when Padmabati took Rs. 100/- from the plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4, in part-payment of the aforesaid stipulated price, under the aforesaid agreement. According to the plaintiffs, the balance of the consideration money, viz. Rs. 499/-, was paid to Padmabati upon execution of the sale deed or conveyance on 31st January, 1950, when the parties went to the Registration Office for completing the transaction, but, as it was late for the purpose of registration, that was put off till the nest day. Thereafter, however, Padmabati on some pretext or other, delayed the matter and, eventually, on coming to know that Padmabati and her brother had arranged to sell away the suit property to or in the name of defendant No. 4, wife of defendant No. 3, they, before, registration of this defendant's Kobala, though after presentation of the same for registration, informed the said defendants of the above earlier agreement in their (plaintiffs') favour, but, in spite of the said notice or intimation, the said Kobala was registered, thus compelling the plaintiffs to institute the present suit.

( 3 ) THE defence was a complete denial of the plaintiff's agreement and also of the receipt of any money by Padmabati from the plaintiffs. The defence, further, was that the defendants Nos. 3 and 4, or, more accurately, defendant No. 4 was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, and hence her or their title under the above disputed kobala would prevail.

( 4 ) THE learned Munsif over-ruled all the defences and decreed the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge also found in favour of the plaintiffs on the question of their agreement for purchase, as aforesaid, and of full payment of the stipulated price of Rs. 599/- and also execution of the kobala in their favour by Padmabati and the putting off of its registration by her on false pretexts. These are concurrent findings of fact, made by the two Courts below, and they are not liable to be re-opened now, they not being, open to challenge in second appeal. These findings are, therefore, affirmed and maintained.

( 5 ) THAT leaves us with the only other defence, namely, the special and specific defence, raised by the defendants Nos. 3 and 4, that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice and hence they are protected in law against the plaintiffs' claim. That defence appears to have been overruled by the learned Additional District Judge, rather summarily, upon the view that, as, admittedly, the defendant or defendants concerned received notice of the plaintiffs' agreement before registration of their kobala, although after the said kobala had been presented for registration, they could not be regarded as bona fide purchasers for value without notice for purposes of Section 27 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, which is the statutory provision, directly relevant on the point. We do not think that this view of the learned Additional District Judge is justified in law, notwithstanding observations to the contrary i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document