JUDGMENT :

1. This is the plaintiff's second appeal assailing a judgment of reversal passed by the lower appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1982 dated 28.04.1986 whereby the suit bearing R.S. No. 167 of 1980 for specific performance of contract of the plaintiff, which was decreed by the trial Court by means of judgment and decree dated 23.12.1981 was set aside and dismissed by the lower appellate Court.

2. The instant second appeal was admitted by the Court on 15.07.1986 and on the application for interim relief moved by the plaintiff-appellant, it was provided that in case, if the plaintiff is in possession, it shall not be disturbed in execution of the decree. During pendency of the instant second appeal, the original plaintiff, namely, Ram Dev and the defendants-respondents Paras Nath and Raj Karan Verma expired and the legal heirs have been brought on record.

3. The Court has heard Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Atiya Abid, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Before adverting to the substantial questions of law, it will be appropriate to take a glance at the facts giving rise to the instant appeal.

5. Shri Ram Dev, the original plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of contract registered as regular suit No.167 of 1980 pleading that Shri Raj Karan Singh, father of Paras Nath Singh had executed a registered agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff on 29.11.1979 in respect of the property in question which was morefully described in the agreement as situate on Chak No.232 measuring 1 bigha, 6 biswa and 15 dhur situate in Mauja Asharafpur Barwa, Pargana-Minjhaura, Tehsil-Akbarpur, District-Faizabad (now District Ambedkar Nagar).

6. In pursuance of the aforesaid agreement to sell, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.2,000/-as earnest money and a sum of Rs. 1,600/-was agreed to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed. It was also agreed that the defendant Raj Karan Singh would seek the permission for executing the sale deed as the consolidation operations were in progress in the village and thereafter, the sale deed would be executed. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff had requested Raj Karan Singh to seek the permission, however, he delayed and evaded the same. However, it is also pleaded that in April, 1980, the plaintiff came to know that Raj Karan Singh had received the permission and then again he was requested to execute the sale deed. This was again ignored, consequently, the plaintiff sent a notice on 28.04.1980 to execute the sale deed and that the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay remaining sum of Rs.1,600/-, however, the defendant did not reply to the said notice and later on 13.05.1980, the plaintiff became aware that Raj Karan Singh has already executed a sale deed in favour of defendants No.2 and 3, namely, Raj Karan Verma And Ram Charan Verma. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the plaintiff instituted the suit of specific performance of contract also pleading that the defendants No.2 and 3 may be directed to join the said sale deed to convey the proper title to the plaintiff.

7. The defendants No.2 and 3 filed their joint written statement and denied the averments of the plaint. It set up the case that the original vendor, namely, Raj Karan Singh had already entered into an agreement with the defendants No.2 and 3 on 10.01.1975 for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,000/-out of which Rs.8,000/-was paid and Rs.2,000/-was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. It is in view thereof that the defendant No.1 had taken the permission and executed the sale deed in favour of the defendants No. 2 and 3 on 28.03.1980 and as such the defendants No.2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, without notice of the agreement and their rights could not be defeated at the behest of the plaintiff on the basis of his agreement.

8. Upon exchange of the pleadings, the trial Court framed seven issues, however, the relevant iss