The main legal point established is that the entitlement to specific performance, the status of bona fide purchasers, and the applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code are crucial in determining the outcome of a case involving an agreement to sell.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the "Code") challenges judgment and decree dated 20.9.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Amritsar affirming the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar in his judgment and decree dated 23.8.1997. The Vendees of the suit land namely defendant-appellants Harbans Singh and others have felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree. Both the Courts below have held the plaintiff-respondent-1 Mohinder Singh is entitled to a decree for possession of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.5.1985 that was entered into by defendant-respondents 2 and 3 through their General Power of Attorney defendant-respondent-4 in respect of the suit land. According to the aforementioned contract, defendant-respondents 2 and 3 through their General Power of Attorney had agreed to sell the suit land measuring 44 kanals 1 marla at the rate of Rs. 18,0007/-per acre and Rs.22,000/- was received by them as earnest money. A direction has also been issued to defendant-respondents 2 to 4 to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement to sell dated 12.5.1985 and on their failure to do so, it has to be executed by the Court through its official as per terms of the agreement to sell. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the execution of the agreement to sell dated 12.5.1985 Ex.Pl has been proved on record as the signatures of Piara Singh on the agreement to sell as well as his sample-signatures taken in the court on 11.6.1987 have been proved to be of one and the same person.The plea of forgery has been rejected. It has further been found that the plaintiff-respondent-1 has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It has also been concurrently found that the plaintiff-respondent-1 alongwith his brother Paramjit Singh and Narender Pal Singh visited the village of defendant-respondents 2 and 3 as well as of defendant-respondent-4 to get the sale deed executed. But they did not execute the sale deed. The plaintiff-respondent-1 also filed an application before the Sub-Registrar on the last date fixed for execution of the sale deed, but defendant-respondents 2 to 4 did not turn up. It has also been held that filing of suit by the plaintiff-respondent-1 against defendant-respondents 2 to 4 for permanent injunction restraining them from alienating the suit property in favour of the defendant-appellants would itself be ample proof of the fact that the plaintiff-respon-dent-1 has always been willing and ready to perform his part of the contract.

2. On the question as to whether the defendant-appellants are the bona fide purchasers of the suit property, it has been concurrently found by both the courts below that they were fully aware of the agreement to sell between the plaintiff-respondent-1 and defendant-respondents 2 to 4 and no benefit of Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 could be extended to the defendant-appellants. In this regard, the views of the Lower Appellate Court read as under:

"In the sale deeds, a reference has been made to the agreement da 1 10.12.1985 and the receipt dated 31.1.1986 but both the documents have been with-held by the defendants.In fact, no such document ever existed but the same have been referred to authenticate the sale deeds. If these documents existed, then there was no reason to withhold those documents. Even otherwise, the agreement dated 12.5.1985 in favour of the plaintiff is prior to that agreement. In view of the above discussed evidence, it is clear that after the execution of the agreement, when the plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 1 to 3 started negotiation to sell the property in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 8 he moved an application before the Sub Registrar about the stay order granted by the Court of Sh. Dhian Singh, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar, to alienate the suit property