JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

The instant second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.1988 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Faizabad in Civil Appeal No.81 of 1983 (Ram Newaz Vs. Ram Yaggya and others) by means of which the appeal of the defendant was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 25.01.1983 passed by Munsif Hawali, Faizabad in Regular Suit No.140 of 1981 (Ram Yaggya Vs. Bachchu Lal) was set aside, as a result the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for specific performance of contact which was decreed by the trial court was set aside and dismissed by the lower appellate court.

2. Against this judgment of reversal, while admitting this second appeal, this Court by means of order dated 11.04.1988 noticed the following substantial questions of law involved in the instant appeal, which reads as under:-

(i) Whether without recording specific finding on question of possession of plaintiff-appellant, the lower appellate court could dismiss the suit on the ground that defendant-respondent nos.1 and 2 are bonafide purchaser for value without notice? (The trial court recorded specific finding about possession of plaintiff-appellant and thereby held that defendant-respondent nos.1 and 2 were not bonafide purchaser without notice).

(ii) Whether the defendant-respondents could challenge proof of agreement to sell when the same was exhibited without any objection on their behalf?

3. Heard Dr. R. S. Pandey learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ankit Pandey for the appellant and Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Before answering the aforesaid substantial questions of law involved in the instant second appeal, certain brief facts giving rise to this appeal are being noticed first.

5. Ram Yaggya (as plaintiff) instituted a suit for specific performance of contract registered as Regular Suit No.140 of 1981 before the court of Munsif Hawali, Faizabad. The suit was instituted against Bachchu Lal who is the son of the original vendor Surya Pal, whereas Ram Newaz and Ram Sanehi are the purchaser of the property in question. While defendant no.4 Ram Pratap claimed ownership of the property on the basis of an alleged Will said to be executed by Surya Pal.

6. While instituting the suit the plaintiff pleaded that the property in question belonged to Surya Pal who executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff on 20.04.1972. Balwant Lal and Surya Pal each had half share in property in question i.e. land bearing no.44 measuring 2 biswa 5 dhur, land no.81 measuring 5 biswa 6 dhur situate in Gram Kodra, Pargana Pashit Rath, Tehsil Bikarpur, District Faizabad.

7. It was also pleaded that Surya Pal had received some property in District Bahraich from his in-laws and for the said reason he was primarily residing there. He had given the said property in suit to the plaintiff for tilling. As Surya Pal was residing in Bahraich he had expressed his desire to alienate the same. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the said agricultural land and the house for a total consideration of Rs.6000/=. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.3500/= as earnest money and an agreement was executed by Surya Pal in favour of the plaintiff on 20.04.1972 with the stipulation that the remaining consideration will be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.

8. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed. However, for one reason or the other Surya Pal deferred the execution of the sale deed. Surya Pal expired in 1978. He was succeeded by his son Bachchu Lal. The plaintiff requested Bachchu Lal to execute the sale deed who also delayed and deferred the matter and it is only in May 1979 when the plaintiff became aware that Bachchu Lal had executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants no.2 and 3, namely, Ram Newaz and Ram Sanehi, that the instant suit was preferred. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was always ready