ORDER :- The unsuccessful plaintiff, who filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 1-7-1989 and lost his case in the first appellate Court as well, is the appellant herein.

2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the defendants 1 to 3 before the trial Court who are the respondents 1 to 3 herein, entered into a sale agreement dated 1-7-1989 with him for sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 3,240/- and the said consideration was also received by them, agreeing to execute the Sale Deed within a period of one year. On knowing that the defendants 1 to 3 tried to alienate the suit property, the plaintiff issued an advertisement on 7-8-1989 in 'Maalai Murasu' daily. Subsequently, having known that the defendants 1 to 3 have sold the suit property to the fourth defendant, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 1-7-1989.

3. In their written statement, the defendants 1 to 3, first of all denied the agreement dated 1-7-1989. It was their case that the suit property did not belong to them on 1-7-1989 and it belonged to one Abdul Razak, the husband of the first defendant. According to them, they had approached the plaintiff for a loan for which he insisted upon them to give the suit property as security and it was only for that purpose, they executed a document even without knowing about the recitals in the document. It was their further case that only after receipt of notice in the suit, they came to know that the document which they executed was a sale deed and they had no knowledge of the paper advertisement when they sold the property to the fourth defendant for a valuable consideration.

4. Similarly, the fourth defendant too, filed his written statement stating that he did not have any knowledge of the paper advertisement and that he purchased the suit property for Rs. 5,000/- only as a bona fide purchaser.

5. On the side of the plaintiff, he himself got examined as P.W. 1 besides marking eight documents. On the side of the defendants, the second and fourth defendants were examined as D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 respectively and no exhibit was marked on their side.

6. The trial Court, on an analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, framed four issues and holding that the plaintiff had not proved sufficiently to the effect that the fourth defendant had knowledge of the paper publication, further held that the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 3,240/- from the defendants 1 to 3 and dismissed the suit in other respects and this finding of the Trial Court was upheld by the first appellate Court, against which the present Second Appeal.

7. This Court, on 12-1-1995, admitted the present Second Appeal on the substantial question of law as to whether the approach of the Courts below in negativing the claim of specific performance is justifiable in view of Section 18 of the Specific Relief Act.

8. Mr. Devaraj, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has contended that the appellant/plaintiff has effected publication under Ex. A.2 dated 7-8-1989 in Maalai Murasu, a popular evening daily having wide circulation in Trichy and despite that, the fourth respondent had purchased the suit property at his own risk and he had failed to exercise care and diligence to know about the title of the suit property which is mandated under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is his further contention that the fourth defendant has stated neither in his pleadings nor in his evidence that he had made enquiry before his purchase and mere statement to the effect that he was not aware of the earlier proceedings is not suffice to prove his case of bona fide purchaser as per Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act. In this context, he has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2000 (3) LW 675 : (AIR 2001 SC 1658) in the case of R. K. Mohammed Ubaidullah v. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab (D) by LRs. wherein it was held as under (paras 15 and 16) :

"As can be seen from Section 19(a) an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document