The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing the validity and execution of an agreement for the sale of property, considering the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Specific Relief Act.

Kiran Anand Lall, J.

1. Telu Ram plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 22.6.1980 for the sale of three shops, with staircase on the ground floor, and chobaras on the first and second floor with latrine and bath etc. , bearing municipal property No.1191/2. The agreement was, statedly, executed by defendant no.1, gauran Devi, for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. As per the terms of agreement, a sum of rs.5000/- was paid as earnest money at the time of execution of agreement, and remaining consideration (Rs.15000/-) was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed, to be done on or before 13.9.1980. In case of plaintiffs failure to get the sale-deed executed within the stipulated time, the earnest money was to stand forfeited, and in case of defendant no.1s failure to execute the sale-deed, she was to return the earnest money and also pay damages, both totalling rs.10,000/-.

2. However, before the date fixed, defendant no.1 sold the property to defendant no.2, Sharanjit Pal Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 18.8.1980, and, thus, violated the terms of agreement. The plaintiff who had always been ready and regular Second Appeal No.1171 of 1986. (2)willing to perform his part of the contract, thereupon, filed the present suit.

3. In the written statement, defendant no.1 denied having executed the agreement or having received any earnest amount and pleaded that the agreement was a fabricated document. According to her, the plaintiff was tenant in her two shops which bore property no.1192/2. She had full faith in him, since he was servant of her husbands brother, Kaka Ram. Her further case was that she is an illiterate and aged lady who could only put her signatures, and it seemed that taking advantage of her such position, the plaintiff, who was her tenant, might have obtained her signatures/ thumb impression. About the sale of said property in favour of defendant no.2, she pleaded that she was owner thereof and as such she had validly sold it.

4. Defendant no.2 pleaded that he was a bonafide purchaser, for value and without notice, of the suit property. He was employed in the Municipal committee. He had applied for loan in the year 1979, and after loan was sanctioned in his favour, he purchased this property from defendant no.1. Before getting the sale-deed executed, he had made inquiries from the plaintiff (who was tenant therein) who told him that he was not interested in purchasing this property. The plaintiff never told him about the alleged agreement. Defendant no.2 also pleaded that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 had colluded, in order to deprive him of the suit property and had, therefore, brought into existence a fabricated agreement to sell.

5. Trial court framed the following issues:-

1. ). Whether Smt. Goran entered into an agreement dated regular Second Appeal No.1171 of 1986. (3)22.6.80 with the plaintiff and received Rs.5000/- as earnest money? OPP 2 ). If issue No.1 is proved, whether said agreement is an act of fraud practised by the plaintiff on defendant no.1 as alleged in para No.1 of her written statement? OPD.1.3 ). If issue No.1 stands proved, whether the said agreement is an act of collusion between the plaintiff and defendant No.1? OPD.2 4 ). Whether the plaintiff has ever been ready and willing to perform his part of contract OPP 5 ). Whether defendant No.2 purchased the property with notice of the alleged agreement dated 22.6.80? opp 6 ). Whether defendant No.2 is a bonafide purchaser for consideration? OPD-2.7 ). Whether the alleged agreement is unconscionable and unenforceable? OPD-1.8 ). Whether plaintiff was aware of the negotiations and bargain between defendant No.1 and 2? OPD-2.9 ). Relief.

6 On the conclusion of trial, the trial court decided issues no.1, 4 and 5 against the plaintiff, issues no.2 and 7 in favour of defendant no.1, and issues no.6 regular Second Appeal No.1171 of 1986. (4)and 8 in favour of defendant no.2, and dismissed the suit. The lower