The court determined the bonafide status of the purchaser without notice and the necessity for the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness for specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1. The present Second Appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment dated 25.10.2021 passed in A.S. No.5 of 2020, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 05.09.2019 passed in O.S. No.89 of 2013, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Chidambaram.

2. The appellant herein is the 2^nd defendant in the above suit. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The parties will be referred to in the rank assigned to them in the suit for the purpose of convenience and clarity.

3. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking for the relief of specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 05.07.2013 executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit land.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property was agreed to be sold for total sale consideration of Rs.1,01,000/-. Towards the said amount, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- as advance and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.81,000/- within a period of one month and failing which the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit to get the sale deed executed. The plaintiff approached the 1^st defendant several times within a stipulated period of one month to tender balance amount and requested him to execute the sale deed, but the 1^st defendant evaded with an intention to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. On 16.08.2013, the plaintiff sent a legal notice calling upon the 1^st defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed. Meanwhile, the 1^st defendant sold the property to the 2^nd defendant. The 1^st and 2^nd defendants colluded together and created a sale deed knowing fully well about the agreement between the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant. Hence, the suit.

5. The 1^st defendant remained ex parte. The 2^nd defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff and submitted that he purchased the suit property from the 1^st defendant on 20.08.2013 for a proper sale consideration of Rs.65,700/-. After purchase by the 2^nd defendant, the plaintiff, being the adjacent owner, created the suit sale agreement. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. The trial court, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the same was confirmed by the first appellate court.

7. Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal is filed by the 2^nd defendant.

8. This Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the courts below are right in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant is not an innocent bonafide purchaser by not properly appreciating the evidence on record and thereby, not granting him the protection under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act.”

9. Mr.S. Subramaniya, the learned counsel for the appellant / 2^nd defendant contends that the 2^nd defendant is the bonafide purchaser without notice of the alleged agreement between the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant. He contends that the entire transaction was entered into in a bonafide manner and the sale deed having been registered, the courts below erroneously held that the 2^nd defendant has no locus standi to object the case of the plaintiff. He would further submit that the suit sale agreement is an unregistered and unstamped document fabricated by the plaintiff in order to defeat the right of the 2^nd defendant. Moreover, in Ex.A2 legal notice, the plaintiff has stated that the entire sale consideration was paid to the 1^st defendant. Whereas, in the plaint, it is mentioned that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- as advance and balance amount