JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

This is the plaintiff's second appeal being aggrieved against the judgment and decree of reversal dated 06th November, 1985 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Bahraich in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1982 (Sri Ram Gopal v. Budhai and Another) whereby the defendant's first appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dated 30th November 1981 in Suit No. 222 of 1981 (Budhai v. Bhupendra Vikram Singh and Another) was set aside as a consequence the suit which was allowed by the Trial Court was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court.

2. The instant second appeal was admitted by this Court on 07.12.1985, however, the substantial questions of law was not formulated. Later, this Court on 23.03.2023 had framed the following two questions of law arising in the instant second appeal.

"(i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in reversing the findings in respect of the issue No.2 to hold that the appellant before the Lower Appellate Court was a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice.

(ii) Whether it was incumbent upon the Lower Appellate Court to have considered the pleadings as well as the evidence of the parties and without meeting the aforesaid reasons was it justified in reversing the findings."

3. That during the pendency of the instant second appeal, the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondent no. 1 expired and their legal heirs have been brought on record. For the sake of convenience, the Court shall be referring to the parties, as they were originally impleaded in the appeal.

4. To put to controversy in a perspective, certain brief facts giving rise to the instant second appeal are being noticed hereinafter.

5. The plaintiff-appellant Budhai had instituted a suit for specific performance of contract before Munsif, Kaisarganj, District Bahraich registered as R.S. No. 222 of 1981 wherein the original vendor namely Bhupendra Vikram Singh was impleaded as the defendant no. 1 while the subsequent purchaser was impleaded as defendant no. 2.

6. It was the case of the plaintiff-appellant that the father-in-law of the defendant no. 1 Bhupendra Vikram Singh remained unwell and for his treatment, the defendant no. 1 required money. For the aforesaid need, the defendant no. 1 agreed to sell the disputed property in question to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 2,100/- out of which a sum of Rs. 1,600/- was paid on 19.04.1974 as earnest money and the remaining was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed.

7. Since the father-in-law of the defendant no. 1 was not well, hence, he did not execute the sale deed at the moment and it was agreed that the sale deed can be executed between 5 to 6 years. Since the defendant no. 1 was repeatedly asked to execute the sale deed and he evaded to perform his obligations, later, it revealed that on 26.08.1981 the defendant no. 1 sold the property in question to the defendant no. 2, hence, the plaintiff instituted a suit on 28.08.1981 seeking a decree of specific performance of contract requiring the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 2 to join in executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the agreement dated 19.04.1974 for which the plaintiff-appellant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

8. The defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 2 filed their separate written statements. The defendant no. 1 the original vendor admitted that he had executed an agreement to sell, however, in his additional pleas he had raised a plea that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the property bearing No. 326 Aa which was sold in favour of the plaintiff and there was no other property for which the agreement was executed and that even the sale consideration was suppressed and for all the reasons, the plaintiff was not entitled to get the agreement enforced as the defendant no. 1 had already executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant no. 2 relating