JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J.

Both the present Regular Second Appeals bearing Nos. RSA-5076-2018 and RSA-866-2019 are arising out of a common judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Charkhi Dadri, as such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The suit for specific performance for Agreement to Sell dated 09.01.2007, filed by the plaintiffs namely Pushpa Devi and Bala Devi, was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 11.02.2014, whereby, the defendant No.1-Krishana Devi/appellant was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs.

2.1. The First Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals filed by the appellant/defendant No.1-Krishana Devi (hereinafter referred to as 'prospective vendor') and defendant No.2-Om Pal and defendant No.3-Vimal Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'subsequent purchasers') vide common judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017, which has been impugned before this Court by filing the present Regular Second Appeals.

2.2. The defendant No.1-Krishana Devi (prospective vendor) filed RSA-5076-2018, whereas, defendant No.2-Om Pal and defendant No.3-Vimal Kumar (subsequent purchasers) filed RSA-866-2019.

3. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from RSA-5076-2018. On 09.06.2007, the respondents No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit against Krishana Devi (prospective vendor) for specific performance for Agreement to Sell dated 09.01.2007 for land measuring 06 Kanals and 18 Marlas for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,48,500/- @ Rs.5,20,000/- per acre. The parties agreed to execute the Sale Deed dated 14.05.2007. The plaintiffs alleged that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. However, Krishana Devi (prospective vendor) did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Sell. She did not appear before the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of execution of the sale deed. However, on 14.05.2007, the plaintiffs remained present in the Office of Sub-Registrar to pay the balance sale consideration of RS.3,58,500/- along with the amount required for other expenses. On 15.05.2007, the plaintiff-respondent issued a Legal Notice(Ex.P-1) to Krishana Devi (prospective vendor) and she replied to the same vide letter dated 23.05.2007 that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of agreement. The plaintiff-respondent is alleged to have issued another Legal Notice dated 26.05.2007 (Ex.PW-6/C) calling upon the defendant to execute the Sale Deed on 04.06.2007 before the Sub-Registrar. Despite that, Krishana Devi (prospective vendor) did not appear on the said date. However, the plaintiffs remained present in the Office of the Sub-Registrar even on 04.06.2007 along with the balance sale consideration and other expenses. As such, the plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance.

4. The defendant (prospective vendor) filed a written statement and contested the suit taking a plea that the plaintiffs remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar and got attested an affidavit (Ex.D-1) on 14.05.2007. It was further pleaded that the prospective vendor was in need of money and she executed Registered Sale Deed No.845 dated 30.07.2007, in favour of Ompal Singh and Vimal Kumar (subsequent purchasers).

4.1. Defendant No.2-Ompal Singh (subsequent purchaser) was initially proceeded against ex parte but the ex parte order was later on set aside. No written statement was filed on behalf of defendant No.2.

4.2. Defendant No.3-Vimal Kumar (subsequent purchaser) filed a separate statement and took a plea that he, along with Mr. Ompal, had purchased the property in question through Sale Deed dated 30.07.2007, for consideration of ?4,31,500/- and they are the bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs.

4.3. The plaintiff filed a replication to the written statement filed by respondent No.1. From the