1982 Supreme(MP) 145

S. S. Sharma, J.
Balaram v. Bapusingh.
S. A. No. 227 of 1971 (I); Decided on 26-2-1982.

Headnote:(1) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S. 19(b) -- suit for specific performance of sale --subsequent purchaser raising plea of bona fide and without notice -- such plea to be proved by him.

        (2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 101 and 102 -- suit for specific performance subsequent purchaser pleading bona fide and absence of notice -- burden lies on him to prove the same.

        The plaintiff, filed a suit for specific performance of the contract with regard to the suit lands and in the alternative for a decree of Rs. 2,000/- as damages with other ancillary reliefs. Deceased Dayam Khan filed a separate written statement and denied the alleged contract or having received Rs. 1000, as a part payment of the sale amount. The appellants filed a separate written statement denying the plaint allegations. They have inter alia pleaded that they are bonafide purchaser in good faith without notice of the earlier contract,

        Held: The two appellants, namely, Balaram and Gendalal are brothers. In the written statement their plea was that they are purchasers in good faith without notice. That stands clearly negatived from the evidence of Balaram (D. W. 1). The position is, therefore, clear that the initial burden, that was on these appellants about their having purchased the suit property without notice of the earlier contract with Bapusingh does not stand discharged. This objection, therefore, fails. AIR 1972 All. 396 distinguished. Appeal dismissed.