The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the court's interpretation of the provision in the context of specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J —The suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein (for short "the plaintiff") for rendition of a decree, for specific performance of contract, stood decreed, by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by defendant No.1/appellant herein, the latter Court dismissed the appeal besides obviously upheld the trial Court''s judgment and decree, hence, the instant appeal.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that admittedly respondent No.2 herein/defendant No.1 (for short "defendant No.1) was recorded as co-sharer on land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 55/186, measuring 3 bighas 5 Biswas, situated at Mauza Kotga Kando, Tehsil Kamroo, and another parcel of the land in khata Khatauni No. 15/41 to 52 measuring 49 bighas 16 biswas in Mauza Kuner Dhamon, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. The said land came to him from his mother Dropti. By an agreement to sell of 7.11.1997 (Ex.PW2/A) , he agreed to sell 2 bighas 4 biswas out of the said land (referred to as suit land) to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.20, 000/- out of which he received a sum of Rs.15, 000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff and handed over the possession of the suit land on the spot. Since then, the plaintiff claims herself to be in possession of the suit land. However, by the said agreement of sale, defendant No.1 agreed to execute the registered sale deed on which the plaintiff was to pay the rest of the sale consideration of Rs.5, 000/- to defendant No. 1. The plaintiff''s grievance is that, though, she was ready and willing to perform her part of contact, however defendant No.1 has been delaying the execution of sale deed on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, he by a registered sale deed of 28.4.1998 sold the suit land to the appellant (referred to as defendant No. 2) which sale is illegal and void. Hence, she laid the present suit for specific performance of contract alongwith the suit for the decree of consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering, trespassing and alienating the suit land.

3. In written-statement filed by defendant No.1, he reasserted the case of the plaintiff as regards his having executed sale agreement with her. His case is that sale deed Ex.DW-2/A was got executed from him under pressure and threat by defendant No.2 and the same is without sale consideration.

4. The suit was contested by defendant No2 and he has filed written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability. On merits, he asserts that defendant No.1 executed a valid registered sale deed in his favour on 18.2.1998 after receiving full sale consideration and has handed over the possession of the suit land to him. It is his further case that he is bona fide purchaser for value and without any notice.

5. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants wherein, she denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance of contract, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the defendant No.1 agreed to sell 2- 4 bighas of land from his share as alleged ?OPP

3. Whether the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal null and valid and not binding on rights of the plaintiff as alleged? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed? OPD2

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD2

6. Whether the defendant No.2 is the bonafide purchaser without notice as alleged ?OPD 2

7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action as alleged? OPD1

8. Whether the aforesaid agreement is the result of pressure and threat as alleged? OPD1

9. Relief.

7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced befor