JUDGMENT

Ram Prasanna Sharma, J. - This appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 against the judgment/decree dated 5-2-2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dhamtari (CG) in Civil Suit No.2-A of 2008 wherein the said court decreed the suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff for specific performance of contract regarding land bearing survey No.858/1 area 0.31 acres (0.14 hectares) situated at village Bhatgaon, Patwari Halka No. 18, Revenue Circle, Tahsil and District Dhamtari, CG.

2. The property in question is owned by appellants No.1 to 4/defendants. Respondent No.1/plaintiff entered into agreement for purchase of the said land @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre and in advance a sum of Rs.5000/- was paid to appellants No. 1 to 4/defendants and appellant No.5 received Rs.53,500/- on different dates on behalf of appellants No.1 to 4/defendants. The balance amount was Rs.3,500/-. The sale deed was to be executed upto December,2007 as per Ex.P/1 but before the expiry of the said period, sale deed was executed by the appellants No. 1 to 3 in favour of appellant No.6 on 8-11-2007. As per plaint averment of respondent No.1/plaintiff, appellant No.6 had knowledge about prior agreement but he purchased the land which is not bonafide transaction on his part. A suit was filed for specific performance of contract by respondent No.1/plaintiff and for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of appellant No.6. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing the parties, the trial court decreed the suit as mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits as under.

i) The amount of Rs.53,500/- is received by Bahur Ram Sahu, therefore, appellants No.1 to 4 are not under obligation to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.1. When amount is received by Bahur Ram Sahu who is not owner of the property, therefore, no cause of action arises for execution of sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 and there is no cause of action for cancellation of sale deed.

ii) Agreement Ex.P/1 is not written in stamp paper and same was not registered, therefore, same is not to be acted upon.

Iii) The trial court has not evaluated the entire evidence in its true perspective, therefore, finding of the trial court is liable to be reversed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. l/plaintiff would submit that the amount was given to the person named in the agreement of proposed sale and appellants No. 1 to 4 have signed in the agreement and Bahur Ram Sahu being father of appellant No.1 to 3 and husband of appellant No.4 received the amount on behalf of appellants No. 1 to 4, therefore, appellants No. 1 to 4 are under obligation to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff. Subsequent purchaser namely Govind Ram /appellant No.6 who has been informed about the agreement and got executed the sale deed in his favour having knowledge about prior agreement, is not bona fide purchaser. He would further submit that the land in question is handed over to respondent No.1/plaintiff on the date of agreement ie.,16-1-2006 and it was not handed over and could not be handed over to appellant No.6 Govind Ram after alleged sale deed, therefore, transaction between appellant No.6 and appellants No. 1 to 3 is a sham transaction and no title is passed to appellant No.6. The trial court has evaluated the entire evidence in its true perspective and same is not liable to be interfered with while invoking jurisdiction of the appeal

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of court below including the judgment and decree.

6. The first question for consideration of this court is whether appellants No. 1 to 5 received amount to the tune of Rs.58,500/- on account of agreement to sale of the land in question. Admittedly, appellants No. 1 to 3 are recorded owners of the property as per Ex.D/10. It is not seriously disputed by both sides because appella