Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard the learned counsel Sri Pramod K. Sinha for the appellants and Sri K. Ajit and Sri Ram Autar Verma appearing for the respondents.

2. This is a defendants’ second appeal who claim themselves to be the subsequent purchaser of the property. They have filed this appeal. The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of registered agreement dated 18.2.1986 for Plot No. 1876 measuring about 2 acres 12 decimals and plot No. 1876 A and 3 decimal measuring about 2.95 acres for which the defendant No. 1 was the owner having full right to sell the said land. A registered agreement was executed on 18.2.1986 for total amount of Rs. 68,679/- and at the time of agreement Rs. 20,000/- were paid and rest of the amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale-deed. There was a clause in the agreement at No. 2 that a sale-deed has to be executed within a period of one year. The plaintiffs set out a case in the plaint that in spite of the aforesaid clause, the sale-deed was not executed by the defendants within the period mentioned in the agreement inspite of the notice. Then a suit for specific performance was filed being Suit No. 62 of 1987 within the period. It appears that during pendency of the suit the property which was subject matter of the suit, was sold by registered sale-deed in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 6. The trial Court has framed about 17 issues and one of the main issues for consideration was whether the plaintiffs were ready to perform their part of contract and whether defendant No. 2 was ready to perform his part of contract? Further various issues relating to dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., Sections 16 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act as well as whether the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 168 A of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and further an issue was framed that whether the sale-deed dated 15.5.2002 executed in favour of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 is liable to be cancelled and various other issues regarding Sections 61 and 34 of the Transfer of Property Act were also framed. The trial Court after recording its finding on various issues has recorded a finding that defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are the bona fide purchasers without knowledge after payment of consideration and, therefore, it cannot be said that the sale-deed executed in favour of the defendants during the pendency of the suit, is liable to be cancelled. But a finding has been recorded that admittedly, there was a registered agreement after payment of Rs. 20,000/-, the sale-deed was to be executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 within a period of one year. Admittedly, the sale-deed has not been executed and the suit was filed within time. Therefore, a money decree was passed decreeing the suit to the extent of the refund of the amount with interest after recording a finding that as the subsequent purchasers are the bona fide purchasers without knowledge, therefore, the sale-deed cannot be said to be annulled.

3. The plaintiffs filed an appeal claiming therein that as the suit was filed within time and the defendants who purchased the property are residing adjacent to the same village and they have full knowledge regarding the agreement, therefore, it cannot be said that they are bona fide purchasers in good faith, as such appeal be allowed to the extent with a direction for execution of the sale-deed in their favour. The appellate authority after recording a finding on the basis of the pleadings held that from the record, it is clear that defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are residing in the village adjacent to the village of the plaintiff and therefore, it cannot be presumed by any means that they had no knowledge regarding the execution of the registered agreement in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the appeal was allowed after recording such fining with a direction to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Hence, the present appeal has been file