JUDGMENT :

SOUMEN SEN, J.

1. The appeal is arising out of a judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri in a suit for Specific performance of contract.

2. The appellant claims to be the purchaser of the property in question.

3. The grievance of the appellant is that the impugned decree was passed disregarding her claim of a prior agreement for sale culminated in a registered deed of conveyance along with delivery of possession of the suit property in her favour. In any event she is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

4. The respondent no. 1 is the decree holder.

5. The respondent no. 2 is the vendor.

6. Briefly stated, the plaintiff Kishorilal Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Kishorilal’) alleged to have entered into an oral agreement for sale with Homco Engineering Works Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Homco’) on 21st December, 2002 for purchasing the suit property at a sum of Rs. 1.25 crores.

7. In the said transaction one Shri Kamal Kumar Baid and Pulak Chowdhury acted as brokers. Before the agreement the property was jointly inspected and verified by Kishorilal and Partha Dey one of the directors of Homco. Kishorilal alleged to have paid a sum of Rs. 10 lacs to Homco towards earnest money. It was mutually agreed that a draft copy of the agreement would be sent to Homco in order to enable it to verify and finalise it and thereafter to forward the said agreement to the plaintiff to facilitate and prepare the final deed of conveyance for execution. The plaintiff in pursuance of such alleged oral agreement forwarded a draft copy of the agreement along with a sum of Rs. 2 lacs followed by a further sum of Rs. 3 lacs. On receipt of the said sum of Rs. 3 lacs Homco forwarded the draft copy of the agreement which was finalized and settled at the chamber of Mr. S. Ganguly, Advocate at Kolkata in presence of Mr. Partha Dey of Homco, Kishorilal and the two brokers mentioned above. One Shri Ram Prasad Thakur was also present at the time of finalisation of the draft in the Chamber of Mr. S. Ganguly. Thereafter, Kishorilal sent the final copy of the said agreement and requested Homco to indicate the mode, manner and time of payment of the balance consideration amount. Homco accepted the aforesaid sums paid since 21st December, 2002 without any objection. It was alleged that in terms of the agreement the plaintiff was supposed to hand over the actual physical possession of the property in question upon payment of part consideration amount as mutually agreed between the parties, however, Homco was not responding to various requests and demands for execution of the final deed of conveyance. Kishorilal made enquiries and came to learn that Homco had taken advance from market and one M/s. Maonil Estate Private Limited (in short, Maonil) had filed a suit against Homco and others being Title Suit No. 49 of 2002 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Siliguri concerning the property in question. Plaintiff could further ascertain that Homco was habituated in taking advance from the market against properties. On a representation made by Partha allegedly in the morning of 21st February, 2003 that Maonil had agreed to settle the suit upon payment of Rs. 10 lacs out of which Homco could arrange Rs. 8 lacs and in order to bail out Homco, Kisorilal arranged for the balance amount of Rs. 2 lacs and paid such amount in cash on 21st February, 2003 to Partha in presence of Ram Prasad. Su