Bona fide purchasers must prove lack of notice for protection under prior agreements.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) -

1. FACTUAL MATRIX

1.1. The plaintiff assails the correctness of first appellate court's judgement which in turn has reversed/modified the judgment of the trial court.

1.2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed

1.3. The appellant (Gurdev Singh son of Bhura Singh) filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 02.01.2006. Smt. Hardeep Kaur wife of Sh. Gurdev Singh son of Sh. Kehar Singh was the owner of land measuring 48 kanals being 960/1954th shareholder of total land measuring 97 kanals and 14 marlas, situated in village Gobindgarh. She on receipt of Rs.5,25,000/-, out of total sale consideration of Rs.9,25,000/- entered into an agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff on 02.01.2006. The sale deed was to be executed on 05.06.2006, however, defendant no.1-Smt. Hardeep Kaur fraudulently sold the suit land in favour of defendant no.2-Jagdeep Singh son of Sh. Sadhu Singh, vide sale deed dated 27.03.2006.

1.4. Defendant no.1 denied the execution of the agreement to sell. It was asserted by her that one Sh.Harbans Singh, Ex. Sarpanch of the village Pana, who has good relations with her husband and family members came along with plaintiff-Gurdev Singh to her house and assured her that they will provide help from the government as she was suffering from Polio. Believing that she accompanied them to Dabwali in a car and got prepared certain documents from her under the pretext of receiving government aid, but, later on she came to know that the papers were on agreement to sell which has been got executed. She also made a complaint to the police but no action was taken. Defendant no.2 claims that he is a bonafide purchaser of the property for valuable consideration of Rs.9,25,000/- and he has no knowledge of the agreement to sell.

1.5. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 09.03.2010. However, the first appeal filed by defendant no.2-Jagdeep Singh was allowed and the case was remitted back for fresh trial. The trial court culled out the following issues:-

1. Whether the defendant no.1 had entered into an agreement to sell dated 2.1.2006 regarding sale of his land measuring 48 kanals being 960/1954 shares of the land measuring 97 kanals 14 marlas sitauted at village Gobindgarg, Tehsil Dabwali, for a lawful consideration of Rs.9,25,000/- ?OPP

2. Whether the defendant no.1 has received Rs.5,25,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff?OPP

3. Whether the sale deed no.6581 dated 27.3.2006 allegedly executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is wrong and liable to be set aside as alleged?OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract?OPP

4-A. Whether the defendant no.2 is a bonafide purchaser of the suit for valuable consideration of Rs.9,05,000/- on the basis of sale deed no.6581 dated 27.3.2006 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2?OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the consequential releif of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD.

7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD

8. Relief.'

1.6. Both the court have concurrently found that defendant no.1 executed the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff on payment of Rs.5,25,000/- and the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Its correctness is not challenged by any of the parties.

1.7. The trial court found that defendant no.2 had the knowledge of agreement to sell as he was closely associated with all the three witnesses of the sale deed, namely, Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Sh. Balkar Saingh and Sh. Major Singh, who were the owners of adjoining land with the land in dispute and in fact, they were cultivating the suit land on contract