A person is deemed to have notice of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 26-5-1984, passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Sitapur in Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1984 arising out of judgment and decree dated 25-2-1984, passed by Civil Judge, Sitapur in Regular Suit No. 117 of 1982 whereby the trial Court had decreed the plaintiff-respondents claim in suit and First Appellate Court had also confirmed the said decree and judgment of the trial Court.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that plaintiff-respondent Ram Bilas filed a suit against the defendants-appellants Godhan and 3 others for specific performance of contract to execute the sale deed in respect of agricultural plots Nos. 116 (area 1 bigha 13 biswan) 117 (area 2 biswa), 118 area 1 biswa), and plot No. 134 (area 4 bighas and 10 biswas 11 biswansi) situated in village Pooranpur, Pargana Bari, Tahsil Sidhauli, District Sitapur. According to the plaint case on 18-11-1981, the defendant No. 1 has entered into an agreement for sale of plots in dispute to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 12,000. 00 and a sum of Rs. 1000. 00 was paid by the plaintiff respondent to the defendant-appellant No. 1 on the aforesaid date and it was agreed upon that when the plaintiff will require the defendant No. 1 will execute a sale deed of the above mentioned plots of land in favour of the plaintiff after having received of the balance amount of sale consideration. According to the plaintiffs case the agreement to execute the sale deed was executed on 18-11-1981 in writing and was registered on 19-11-1981 in accordance with the requirements of law. The plaintiff further averred that on 15-3-1982 the defendant No. 1 received a further amount of Rs. 5,000. 00 from the plaintiff and executed a receipt for the same in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. According to the plaintiff-respondents case the defendant No. 1 by 15-3-1982 has thus received a total sum of Rs. 6,000. 00 as advanced only. The plaintiff further averred that thereafter the plaintiff required the defendant to execute a sale deed of the land in dispute in pursuance of above agreement in favour of plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent served a written notice dated 23-6-1982 on defendant-appellant No. 1 but according to the plaintiff-respondent, he did not pay any heed to that notice. According to plaint case subseqeuntly on 2-8-1982, the defendant-appellant No. 1, who is the father of the appellant No. 4 Kallu executed the sale deed of plot No. 134 in favour of Kallu and two others, namely, Parbhu and Rewti and this sale deed in favour of defendants-appellants 2, 3 and 4 by appellant No. 1 was executed on 2-8-1982. The plaintiffs case is that the defendants-appellants 2 to 4 had purchased plot No. 134 which was also the subject matter of the agreement of sale. Defendants-appellants 2 to 4 had the knowledge of agreement which had been entered into between the plaintiff-respondent and defendant-appellants Nos. 2 to 4 who have been impleaded as defendants. In paragraph-4 of the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

( 3 ) THE defendant No. 1 denied the plaintiffs allegations to the effect that the defendant No. 1 had entered into an agreement to sell the plots mentioned in the earlier parts of the judgment and in the plaint. The defendant denied the agreement dated 18-11-1981 and receipt of the sums referred to above. The defendants stated and had set up theory in itself vide paragraph 11 of the written statement. The defendant-appellant No. 1 had not entered into an agreement to sale as alleged in the plaint and that he did not know the plaintiff- respondent and correct facts are to the effect that on 18-11-1981 Sri Ganesh Prasad, brother of Tribhuwan Prasad and the appellant-defendant No. 1 had entered into an agreement in writing with him for sale of all his plots referred to above except plot No. 134 for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- a