JUDGMENT :

ARUN BHANSALI, J.

These applications for leave to appeal have been filed by the applicants - purchasers aggrieved against the judgments & decrees dated 10/4/2014, amended on 6/3/2017, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sojat.

2. The suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent Prasanna Chand in relation to agricultural land situated at village Basni Jodhraj, Patwar Area - Kharia Soda, Tehsil, Sojat in relation to agreement to sell dated 24/8/1995 on 29/1/2011 against the defendants - Abdul Raseed and Ayub Bhai. The suit was resisted by the defendants.

3. The trial court framed seven issues and after evidence was led by the plaintiffs and the defendants did not lead any evidence, decreed the suit on 10/4/2014. Whereafter, the decree was amended on 6/3/2017.

4. In the applications filed by the applicants, it is indicated that the land in question has been purchased by the applicants from the defendants by registered sale deeds dated 5/10/2011, the applicants are bonafide purchasers and were not aware about the filing/pendency of civil suit and it is only when the Patwari informed them in the beginning of June, 2018 that the plaintiff had approached him for making mutation entry in his favour, after the sale deed was executed under the orders of the court on 23/5/2018, the applicants became aware of passing of the impugned decree.

5. It is submitted that the applicants are in peaceful, long & settled possession of the land from the date the sale deeds were executed in their favour by the defendant in the suit.

6. Further submissions have been made that as the plaintiff has initiated proceedings to dispossess the applicants from the suit property, the applicants be granted leave to challenge the impugned judgments & decrees dated 10/4/2014, amended on 6/3/2017, in absence whereof the same would result in grave undue hardship to the applicants as they would be dispossessed from their own land. It was prayed that they may be granted leave to defend.

7. Along with applications, copies of sale deed and mutation entries have been filed.

8. Reply to the applications has been filed by the plaintiff - decree holder inter alia raising preliminary objections and has submitted that the defendants in the suit have contested the matter on merits and after evidence was led by the plaintiff, the trial court has passed the judgments & decrees impugned. It is submitted that the defendants did not disclose the factum of execution of so called sale deed dated 5/10/2011 before the trial court and that the transfer dated 5/10/2011 is automatically rendered null and void on account of agreement dated 24/8/1995 and, therefore, the applicants have no right. Allegations have been made that the applicants were aware of the litigation and that they were acting in collusion with the defendants and that the transfer was hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘the T.P. Act’).

9. Submissions have also been made that the applicants can only resist the decree under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 98 CPC and are not entitled to maintain the applications seeking leave to file appeal and, therefore, the applications deserve to be dismissed.

10. Learned counsel for the applicants made submissions that the transfer, though made during the pendency of the suit, the applicants were neither aware of filing of the suit nor even aware of passing of the decree and execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Ever since the sale deed was executed in their favour on 5/10/2011 they are in possession of the land in question and, therefore, being bonafide purchasers they are entitled to file appeal against the decrees impugned.

11. Submissions were sought to be made in relation to the merit of the decrees to indicate that the trial court should not have decreed the suit for specific performance.

12. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders & Investors Pvt. Limited : (2013) 5 SCC