The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act and the requirements for a subsequent purchaser to resist a suit for specific performance of a prior contract of sale.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

1. Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for specific performance of contract.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant no. 1 is the owner of the suit land. To press his legal necessity, defendant no. 1 intended to sell the same. Defendant no. 1 executed an agreement to sell the land on 24.8.1980 in his favour for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/-. He paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards part consideration to the defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 1 agreed that the land will be sold within three months and the balance of Rs. 1,000/- shall be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. The defendant no. 1 maintained a stony like silence. The plaintiff sent a letter on 25.10.1980 under certificate of posting to him for execution of the sale-deed. After receipt of the notice, defendant no. 1 sent a reply on 13.11.1980 stating that he was not prepared to sell the land in view of rise in price. The plaintiff enquired into the matter and ascertained that defendant no. 1 had executed a nominal sale-deed in the name of the defendant no. 3. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendant no. 1 failed to do so. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

3. The defendant no. 1 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendant no. 1 was that the suit land originally belonged to his cousin Radhasyam Patnaik. Radhasyam was a friend of the plaintiff. Radhasyam sold the entire plot to one Bacha Das. Again Radhasyam mortgaged the same to the Government fraudulently to secure loan. The land was put to auction by the Government for recovery of the loan amount. He was the auction purchaser. Since the possession was not delivered, he instituted T.S. No. 63/67 against Bacha Das. Radhasyam was looking after the case. He had obtained a number of blank signed papers from him to utilize in the court in his absence, whenever the same was necessary. After the suit was decreed, the plaintiff sold Ac. 1.64 dec. of land to the sons of Radhasyam. Since the rest portion of the suit land was not sold, Radhasyam bore a grudge against him. Neither he executed any agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff, nor received any amount. The document is a fraudulent one.

4. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 filed a joint written statement stating inter-alia that defendant no. 3 is a bona-fide purchaser of the suit land for value. The suit land was delivered to him. He had no knowledge with regard to agreement entered into between plaintiff and defendant no. 1.

5. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck five issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court decreed the suit in part with the finding that Ext.1 is a genuine and valid document. Defendant no. 3 had no knowledge about the execution of Ext.1 for sale of land by the defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 3 is a bona-fide purchaser. It directed the defendant no. 1 to refund Rs. 5000/- to the plaintiff with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of execution of Ext.1 (24.8.80) till realization of the entire decreetal dues. The plaintiff appealed before the learned District Judge, Ganjam, which was subsequently transferred to the court of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur and renumbered as T.A. No. 27/88 (T.A. No. 59/87 GDC). Learned lower appellate court held that writings in Ext.1 raised suspicion. Writing had been started from the top of the paper leaving a little gap. At the beginning almost the first half of the writing contains small letters and gradually the size of the letters had been increased. Ext.1 is not a genuine document. The same had been fabricated using a blank paper containing the signature of defendant no. 1. It further held that “there is nothing to disbelieve that defendant no. 1 has not executed the sa