JUDGMENT :- This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 16th November 1961 in respect of the land in dispute alleged to have been executed by Uma Kant, defendant No. 3, on behalf of his wife, Smt. Subhani, defendant No. 4, in favour of the plaintiff. The appellant in this appeal is Smt. Phuljhari, defendant No. 2 in the suit. She is the wife of Mohan Nath, who was defendant No. 1.

2. The plaintiff's case was that the house of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were adjoining the land in dispute. According to the plaintiff, Uma Kant, defendant No. 3, husband of Smt. Subhani, defendant No. 4, was the Teal owner of the land in dispute and had acquired the property benami in the name of his wife. It was alleged that on 16th November 1961 Uma Kant, acting as the agent of his wife, Smt. Subhani, entered into a contract with the plaintiff and with the consent of his wife, defendant No. 4, agreed to execute a sale deed of the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1,550/-. The plaintiff alleged that he paid Rs. 100/- as earnest money to Uma Kant, who executed a written agreement (Ex. 6). It was further alleged by the plaintiff that it was agreed between defendant No. 3 and the plaintiff that the remaining amount of Rupees 1,450/- would be paid to defendants Nos. 3 and 4 by 31st March 1962 and, thereupon, the plaintiff would be entitled to get the sale deed executed in his favour but in case he failed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,450/- Uma Kant and Smt. Subhani, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 respectively, would become entitled to sell the land in dispute to any other person. According to the plaintiff, in pursuance of the deed of agreement (Ex. 6), possession of the land was delivered to him and that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had full knowledge of the contract of sale (Ex. 6) executed by Uma Kant in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further alleged that on 1st March 1962 Smt. Subhani, defendant No. 4, executed a sale deed in respect of the land in dispute in favour of Smt. Phuljhari, defendant No. 2 in the suit, and thus a breach of the agreement was committed by Uma Kant and Smt. Subhani, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. It was further alleged that Mohan Nath, defendant No. 1 took the sale in favour of his wife, Smt. Phuljhari, although both, Mohan Nath and Smt. Phuljhari, had full knowledge of the agreement dated 16th November 1961 executed by Uma Kant in favour of the plaintiff. Since Smt. Subhani had executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. Phuljhari, defendant No. 2, the plaintiff had to file the suit out of which this appeal has arisen.

3. The suit was contested by Mohan Nath and Smt. Phuljhari, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, only. The defendants Nos. 3 and 4 did not contest the suit. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2, in their written statement, denied that Uma Kant, defendant No. 3, was the real owner of the land in dispute and also denied the execution of any contract of sale in respect of the land in dispute with the plaintiff. According to the contesting defendants it was Smt. Subhani, defendant No. 4 who was the owner of the land in dispute and that she had validly sold it to Smt. Phuljhari, defendant No.

2. It was also pleaded that the agreement (Ext. 6) executed by Uma Kant, defendant No. 3, in favour of the plaintiff was invalid and unenforceable. It was urged that, in any case, Smt. Phuljhari, defendant No. 2, was a bona fide purchaser for value and, as such, the plaintiff's suit for specific performance could not be decreed.

1. Whether the property in suit was purchased by defendant No. 3 benami in the name of his wife defendant No. 4 ? If so is defendant No. 3 real owner of the property ?

2. Whether defendant No. 3 ever executed any agreement to sell the property in favour of the plaintiff on 16-11-1961 ? If so is that agreement valid and enforceable ?

3. Whether defendant No. 2 is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice ? If so its

Click Here to Read the rest of this document