S.K. Gangele, J.

1. This is defendants first appeal against the judgment and decree of specific performance for contract passed in C.S. No. 7-A/1978.

2. Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract and declaration, declaring the sale-deed dated 14-3-1978 null and void. He pleaded that defendant No. 1 Kanahiya entered into an oral agreement with him on 27-1-1978 to sell the land of Survey No. 154 area 6.627 hectares situated at Village Sangi Bad (hereafter called as 'suit land') in a consideration of Rs. 17,000/-. He paid Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant No. 1 on the aforesaid date and it was agreed that balance amount he paid at the lime of registration of sale-deed, possession of the suit land was also delivered to him on the same day by the defendant No. 1. On 14-3-1978 the defendant No. 1 sold the suit land to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 through their father Bane Singh in spite of his objection before the sub-Registrar and notice to Bane Singh and the defendant No. 1 about the earlier agreement.

3. The defendant No. 1 denied the fact that there was any oral agreement to sale of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff on 14-3-1978 or he received consideration of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff or possession was delivered to him. He further submitted that he sold the land to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by a registered sale-deed and put them in possession of the suit land. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 also denied that there was any agreement between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to sale the suit land in his favour or they had any knowledge of such agreement. They further pleaded that they purchased the land in a valid consideration and arc in possession over it.

4. The Trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence held that there was an oral agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to sale the suit land and he received Rs. 10,000/- as consideration from the plaintiff on the date of agreement and delivered possession of the suit land to the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had the knowledge about the aforesaid agreement. The defendants purchased the suit land subsequently. It having knowledge of the agreement hence the sale-deed executed in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by the defendant No. 1 is void and plaintiff is entitled a decree of specific performance of contract about the suit land.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that findings of the Trial Court are perverse. There was no agreement between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to sale the suit land neither the defendant received any consideration. The pleadings about oral agreement arc vague and evidence of the witnesses are full of contradictions and unreliable hence a decree of specific performance can not be granted by the Court in such circumstances. He relied on judgment of the Hon'ble S.C. reported in 1998 (5) SCC 387, in support of his contention.

6. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that judgment of the Trial Court is as per law. It has properly appreciated the evidence. There was a concluded agreement of sale of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3. They had no knowledge of it, hence the impugned judgment and decree does not call for any interference.

7. It is clear from the facts that plaintiff prayed specific performance of the contract, which is oral one. As per the pleadings the defendant No. 1 agreed to sale the suit land on 27-1-1978 in a total consideration of Rs. 17,000/-and received Rs. 10,000/- as advance and agreed to receive remaining amount of Rs. 7000/- at the time of registration. Possession of the suit land was also said to he delivered to the plaintiff.

8. The plaintiff deposed before the Court that defendant No. 1 agreed to execute the sale deed within one month from the date of agreement and he contacted him after one month but he refused to do so then he came to know that he wanted to sell the land to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 so