Point of Law: Section 19 (b) of Specific Relief Act of 1963 protects bona fide purchaser for a value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of original contract.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. This appeal is against the judgement and decree dated 7th October, 2017 passed by the Court of District Judge, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. A/14/2011 wherein suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking specific performance of contract as also for cancellation of sale deed made in favour of Sujit Singh (defendant No.2)respondent No.7 herein be declared null and void and agreement for sale dated 23/08/2010 be executed for enforcement of sale deed in his favour.

2. The brief facts of this case as pleaded is that the plaintiff Lalan Singh entered in to an agreement with late Manglu for purchase of land bearing khasra No.273, 289, 290, 287 & 288 admeasuring 0.121, 0.299, 0.166, 0.214 & 0.146 respectively total five plots, total area 0.946 hectare for a consideration of Rs.16 lakhs. The agreement Ex.P-1 was executed on 23rd August, 2010. The agreement was registered with Sub Registrar office. The plaintiff contended that out of sale consideration of Rs.16 lakhs, Rs.5 lakhs was paid as earnest money. The plaintiff contented that 16 point form was required to be submitted as per the norms of the State Government to get the sale deed registered, the same seller was required to obtain. The seller further agreed that in case of death of anyone, the legal heir would be bound to execute the sale deed and whenever the sale is required, the sale would be made in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that 16 point form was not supplied to the plaintiff for registration of the sale deed and when he enquired from the respective Patwari, the same was said to have been already obtained by the seller. The plaintiff contended that on different dates i.e. on 26/05/2011, 6/06/2011 and 28/06/2011 the plaintiff wanted to get the sale deed registered and contacted the respondent but the respondent was not found at his home, eventually the sale deed could not be registered. It was stated that the defendant was avoiding the execution of sale deed, had at the same time obtained the 16 point form and sold it in favour of defendant No.2 Sujit Singh for a consideration of Rs.16 lakhs on 29/04/2011. Plaintiff therefore contended that since earlier agreement was existing and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.2 be declared as null and void and without any effect and prayer was made that sale be executed in favour of the plaintiff as per the agreement.

3. Manglu the original seller filed his written statement and denied the execution of agreement and all the plaint averments were also denied. Since execution of the agreement was denied, consequently receipt of earnest money of Rs.5 lakhs was also denied. In the additional pleading, defendant No.1 contended that the agreement was outcome of fraud and defendant Manglu being an illiterate and at the instance of one Raj Thakur he was told that he was to stand as a witness in a transaction, therefore he went to the Sub Registrar Office and taking advantage of it, the signature were obtained on the agreement of sale. It was further contended that the defendant Manglu had not received any amount by way of earnest money and the agreement was outcome of fraud. It was further contended that despite the fact the agreement though was outcome of fraud, the execution was not carried out within the stipulated time, therefore the agreement had lost its efficacy. Averments were made that the sale deed as sought to be executed was at instance of Sanjay Agrawal who was dealing in the business of sale and purchase of the land therefore presence of Raj Thakur, a broker of land was recorded therefore the execution of the agreement is doubtful.

4. Defendant No.2 the purchaser contended that he had no knowledge about existence of earlier agreement of sale and he first time came to know of such fact when he received the summons from the court. It was further contended that after the terms of sale were settled,