A purchaser who has notice of a prior contract for sale is not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

J. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff, who was successful in the trial Court but lost in the first appeal, is the appellant here. Defendant No. 1 is a purchaser of the suit property from) defendant No. 2, a widow, and her daughter defendant No. 3, through a registered instrument (Ext. B) executed and registered on 18-8-54 for a consideration of Rs. 1000/- paid in cash. Defendant No. 2 inherited the suit property from her husband and was in possession thereof. On 25-7-54 the plaintiff got from defendant No. 2 an unregistered agreement for sale of the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 1300/- on payment of Rs. 300/- in cash and with a promise to pay the residual money later on. It was about 20 days after this agreement for sale in the plaintiffs favour, defendant No. 2 executed the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 with the concurrence of her only issue defendant No. 3. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance. Defendant No. 2 did not contest the suit. Defendant No. 3 supported the case of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1's case was that he had no notice of the earlier agreement for sale and ho was a bona fide purchaser for value. His further contention was that the agreement for,sale in favour of the plaintiff had been manufactured with the connivance of defendant. No. 2 after the sale deed was registered. He also sought to make out a case that earlier to the agreement for sale he was carrying on oral negotiation with defendant No. 3 for purchase of the suit land, and that the plaintiff was aware of that position when he entered into the agreement for sale. Both the courts below have rejected defendant No. 1's case on the aforesaid two aspects. On the contrary, the plaintiff wanted to make out a case in his evidence, which was not alleged in the pleading, that prior to the registration of the sale deed, he himself had given notice of the agreement for sale, to defendant No. 1, and that defendant No. 1 had also got such notice from P. W. 5, the father of defendant No. 2. Both the Courts below also rejected this aspect of the plaintiff's case.

( 2 ) THE trial court found that no permission was taken from the Khasmahal authorities prior to the purchase of the suit land, whereas under the rules, if no such permission was taken, it was 'com- petent to the Collector to re-enter upon the property and determine the lease or to levy a fine as the Collector chooses ; that the consent of the Pattadar landlord was also not taken prior to the purchase and it was only obtained some days after the plaint was filed. According to the trial Court, the above factors indicated that defendant No. 1 was proceeding with the purchase in hot haste. Defendant No. 1 admitted that in matter of the purchase he did not consult P. W. 5 (father of defendant No. 2) or any other mediator, and according to the trial court, by doing so, defendant No. i did not follow the ordinary rule of prudence. Defendant No. 1 examined no witness from the [neighbourhood of the disputed land to show that he had made any enquiry about any prior encumbrance of the suit property. Nonet of the attesting witnesses to the sale deed belonged to the locality where the suit land situates, and they were also not known to defendant No. 1 at the time the sale deed was executed and registered. The trial Court observed, "this goes to show that he has not consulted the local people at all. Had he consulted any local man, he would have certainly known the existence of contract in favour of the plaintiff. These circumstances go to show his gross neglect, and hence notice of the contract in favour of the plaintiff can well be imputed to him". The appellate Court did not accept the aforesaid circumstances as amounting to any constructive notice to the purchaser, and so reversed the decree passed by the trial court, holding that defendant No. 1 was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant