Nisha Gupta, J.

This is defendant's first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7.7.84 passed by Additional District Judge, Kishangarhbas Distt. Alwar in Civil Suit No. 44/1980 (79/79) whereby the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sale has been decreed.

2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale of agricultural land measuring 10 bighas and 3 biswas. Initially, the suit was filed against defendant respondent No.3 Gordhan Lal only. The case of the plaintiff respondent was that Gordhan Lal executed an agreement to sale Ex.1 in respect of the agricultural field on 17.5.79 for a sum of Rs.34,500/- in favour of plaintiffs and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid in cash and receipt Ex. 2 was issued on the same day. It was also pleaded that the balance amount was agreed to be paid on 15.12.79 at the time of registration of sale deed, sum of 14,500/- was paid on 17.11.79 and it was agreed that the registration of the sale deed shall be made on 18.11.79 but thereafter, respondent Gordhan Lal refused to execute the sale deed though the plaintiff respondents were prepared to perform their part of the agreement and are still ready to do so. A damages of Rs.,00/- has also been claimed and suit has been filed for specific performance of the contract. Gordhan Lal in his written statement admitted the entire claim of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the present appellant filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for becoming a party to the suit, as the property has been purchased by them. The respondents No. 4 and 5 filed a joint written statement and contested the suit on the grounds that they had no knowledge of any agreement to sale dated 17.5.79 they are the bonafide purchaser without notice of earlier sale, the suit is collusive between the plaintiff and the defendant Gordhan Lal and their right should be protected.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, initially four issues have been framed. Thereafter, issue No.4/A has been added. After hearing, the suit has been decreed, hence this appeal.

4. The contention of the appellants is that suit is mainly decreed on the principle of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act which deals with the theory of lis pendence but here in the present case, the suit was collusive between the plaintiff and the defendant Gordhan Lal and hence Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act has no application on the sale which has been made in faovur of appellants. They are the bona fide purchasers, they have purchased the property with consideration without notice of the earlier agreement, the collusion is proved as the defendant Gordhan Lal has admitted the claim of the plaintiff and also stands witness in his favour. Reference has also been made to the provisions of Section 19-B of the Specific Relief Act and contention of the appellants is that his right should be protected. He is in possession of the property. The possession never handed over to the plaintiffs and his further contention is that he has a valid registered sale deed in his favour and no relief for cancellation of the same has been sought and suit could not be decreed in view of the provisions of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and the court below has erred in holding that suit was not collusive, hence the appeal be allowed and suit should be dismissed.

Per contra, the contention on behalf of the respondents is that the decree has already been executed on 23.9.2011, hence the whole issue is now only academic. The plea of bonafide purchaser is not available to the person who has purchased the property pendente lite. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is exception to the law laid down in 19-B of the Specific Relief Act. Otherwise provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act would be redundant. There could not be any collision between the plaintiff and the defendant Gordhan