The legal presumption of knowledge of notice arising from wilful abstention from inquiry and search, and the implications of registration of an agreement to sell as sufficient notice to the purchaser.

( 1 ) THIS is second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26. 2. 1981 passed by the IInd additional District Judge, Pratapgarh in Civil Appeal No. 199 of 1978 arising out of Original suit No. 13 of 1978.

( 2 ) I have heard Shri H. S. Jain for the appellants and Shri H. G. S. Parihar for the respondents. PLEADINGS ( 3 ) SMT. Ram Rati, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell the land in suit executed by Sant Bux Singh, the defendant No. 1 in her favour impleading Smt. Awadhraj and Lalta Prasad Singh, the subsequent purchasers of the land in suit by a registered sale deed executed by Sant Bux Singh, the defendant No. 1. The case of the plaintiff is that in january, 1978, the defendant No. 1 Sant Bux Singh agreed to sell the land in suit in consideration of Rs. 6,000 after receiving Rs. 1,000 as advance of the sale consideration. The rest of the sale consideration was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. An agreement to sell dated 31. 1. 1978 was got registered and the possession was also delivered to the plaintiff. It was agreed that the plaintiff would get the sale deed executed within two months from the date of the agreement. The plaintiff sent a registered notice to the defendant No. 1 on 17. 3. 1978 but he refused to receive the notice and executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had full knowledge of the earlier registered agreement in favour of the plaintiff and they had also knowledge about the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform the agreement.

( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 Sant Bux Singh filed written statement and admitted that he had entered into an agreement to sell in consideration of Rs. 6,000 with the plaintiff and he had also received Rs. 1,000 a part of the sale consideration and had executed a registered agreement. It is alleged by the defendant No. 1 Sant Bux Singh that he asked the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed but she avoided. It is also alleged that the defendant No. 3 is a clever person and on coming to know about the existing agreement in favour of the plaintiff, he made the defendant No. 1 in confident that the plaintiff would not make the payment of remaining amount of sale consideration by getting the sale deed executed and advised him that he should go to the office of the sub-Registrar for getting cancellation of the agreement to sell and he agreed for getting cancellation of the registered agreement in favour of the plaintiff. He accompanied the defendant no. 3 to the office of the Sub-Registrar on 17. 3. 1978 and signed certain papers in the office of the Sub-Registrar. He was not read over and explained the documents which he had signed in the office of the Sub-Registrar. It is also alleged by the defendant No. 1 that the sale deed was got executed without consideration and on misrepresentation by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3. It is alleged by the defendant No. 1 that he has been in possession over the disputed land throughout.

( 5 ) THE defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the subsequent purchasers of the disputed land have filed separate written statement. They denied the execution of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff and ignorance about the knowledge of any such agreement executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the defendant No. 1 had taken the loan from the plaintiff as well as from the State Government and the disputed land was to be auctioned for recovery of loan by the State Government. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the defendant No. 1 to secure her loan by executing a simple mortgage of the disputed land in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 had executed a simple mortgage after taking Rs. 1,000 instead of an agreement to sell. On an enquiry the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 came to know that the plaintiff had got executed an agreement to sell inst