A. K. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by appellant who is a subsequent purchaser (defendant No. 2) against the judgment and decree dated 27-8-1993 passed by Illrd Additional District Judge, Sagar in civil suit No. 42-A/89 (old No. 3-A/88) decreeing the suit of plaintiff for specific performance of the contract.

( 2 ) IN short the suit of plaintiff is that defendant No. l Devi Singh was the bhumiswami of the suit land which is agricultural land, the said Devi Singh on 11-5-1988 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 30. 000/- to sell the land in question to him. A sum of rs. 5000/- was paid as an earnest money and the balance amount was agreed between the parties to be paid on 20-5-1988. In the document the condition was embodied that in the case Devi Singh would avoid to get the sale-deed executed the plaintiff may file a suit for the execution of the sale-deed. The plaintiff, though insisted Devi Singh to get the sale deed executed and when the same will be found, the sale deed shall be executed. It has further been pleaded by the plaintiff that Devi Singh assured that he will obtain a new Bhoo Adhikar Avam Rin pustika, thereafter he shall execute the sale deed.

( 3 ) DEVI Singh again after receiving Rs. 6000/- towards earnest money on 24-5-1988 executed another document of agreement acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 11,000/- as earnest money and agreed to get the sale deed executed till 30th October, 1988 and in case he fails to get the sale deed executed, the plaintiff shall have right to get the document of sale executed in his favour.

( 4 ) IT has further been pleaded by the plaintiff that after the execution of the second document of agreement dated 24-5-1988, the possession on the land in question was delivered to him, however, during the pendency of the suit he was dispossessed.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff in para 5 of his plaint specifically pleaded that he is ready and willing to pay the balance sale price and he is further ready and willing to get the sale deed executed by incurring the necessary expenses and for that several times, he requested Devi Singh but for one reason or the other he avoided under the pretext that the new Bhob Adhikar Rin Pustika has not been delivered to him. The plaintiff came to know that on 25-6-1988 the suit land has been sold to appellant defendant No. 2 Durg singh. According to the plaintiff, the subsequent purchaser was having knowledge of the said two agreements executed between devi Singh and plaintiff, despite it, got the land in question sold in his favour. According to the plaintiff in presence of the two agreements in his favour, the sale deed is ineffective. On these premised pleadings, it has been prayed by the plaintiff that his suit be decreed and the defendant No. l Devi singh be directed to execute the sale deed.

( 6 ) THE defendants by filing their separate written statements denied the plaint averments, though execution of above said two agreements were not denied by defendant- Devi Singh. The defence which has been taken by Devi Singh in his written statement is that he obtained loan to the tune of rs. 11,000/- from the plaintiff and the above said two documents of agreement were executed to secure the loan. It has also been pleaded that Devi Singh entered into an agreement with defendant No. 2 Durg Singh earlier to the execution of these two agreements i. e. on 29-12-1987 and this fact was disclosed by Devi Singh to the plaintiff while executing the above said two agreements. According to the defendant Devi Singh the plaintiff assured that as soon as the loan amounts is repaid to him, he would destroy the above said two agreements.

( 7 ) THE appellant Durg Singh in his written statement pleaded that he is a bona fide purchaser with consideration without prior knowledge of above said two agreements which were executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. l. This defendant also pleaded that after obtaining Rs. 11,000/- from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document