Honble BALI, J.–The significant questions of law that need adjudication in the context of the contentions as have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties are as to whether mere denial of agreement dated 31.1.1977 executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, which has been held proved by both the courts, would shift the onus on plaintiff of proving that defendant Nos.2 to 8 were bona fide purchasers for value with consideration and without notice of any earlier agreement with the plaintiff, or that the initial onus of the issue being on defendant Nos.2 to 8 they had to lead some satisfactory evidence and further that determination of this question also depended upon attending facts and circumstances of the case. Another question that needs to be determined would be that if agreement dated 20.1.1977 (Ex.A.1) set up by defendant Nos. 2 to 8 is a forged and concocted document, would it be not per se or read with other circumstances not enough to conclude that defendants Nos.2 to 8 had knowledge of agreement dated 31.1.1977 and the plea of bona fide purchasers for value raised by them shall have to be rejected. Other significant question that also arises is as to whether the plaintiff would not be entitled to a decree for specific performance in view of the provisions contained in Sec.20 of the Specific Relief Act even though the agreement in his favour is proved but a period of 27 years has gone by in litigation.

(2). The facts, in so far as the same are necessary for determination of the questions of law framed above, reveal that Jagir Singh, the plaintiff-appellant herein, filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement dated 31.1.1977 with regard to the land measuring 58 Bighas 6 Biswas situated in village Chainpura, Tehsil Kishanganj for consideration of Rs.55,000/-, out of which Rs.20,000/- were paid as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement itself. When, however, Ranjeet Singh, owner of the land, refused to execute the sale deed with regard to the agreement referred to above and when Jagir Singh came to know that Ranjeet Singh had sold the very land subject matter of agreement with him, to defendant Nos.2 to 8, he filed the suit for specific performance. Defendant-respondents, while taking various pleas in opposing the cause of the plaintiff, also set up a prior agreement of sale between Ranjeet Singh and defendants Nos.2 to 8, dated 20.1.1977 (Ex.A.1) on the basis of which they claimed precedence in purchasing the land, over the plaintiff. They also pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers for value and for consideration and without notice of any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. On the aforestated two fold defence projected by them, learned trial court framed besides others, Issue Nos. 4, 6 and 12 reproduced below.

4. Whether the defendant No.1 had no right to sell the disputed agricultural land to the defendant Nos. 2 to 8?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance against all the defendants?

12. Whether the defendant No.1 Ranjeet Singh executed an agreement to sale in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 8 on 20.01.77 in respect of the land in dispute; its effect on the suit?

(3). Learned trial court returned findings on issues reproduced above in favour of the defendants thus resulting into dismissal of the suit by judgment dated 3.1.1986. This constrained the plaintiff to file an appeal which came up before the learned Single Judge of this Court, who while hearing the matter, framed following two questions for consideration:

1. Whether the agreement dt.10.1.77 (Ex.A.1) executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 to 8 is forged and was prepared afterwards in order to escape the suit?

2. Whether the defendant Nos. 2 to 8 had knowledge about the agreement Ex.A.1 dated 31.1.1977 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 but in spite of that they got the sale deed of this land executed and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document