The main legal point established in the judgment is that a contract for the sale of land can be dismissed if found to be fraudulent and unenforceable, especially when a bona fide purchaser for value without notice is involved.

Prideaux, A J C—In Civil Suit No. 266 of 1924 on the file of the Sub-Judge No. 2, Yeotmal, Udebhan son of Madhoji sued Mt. Tulja wife of Narayan, and Nenuram son of Jogidas Marwari, on a contract alleged to have been entered into with the plaintiff by defendant 1 for the sale of her two fields Survey Nos. 9 and 42 of mouza Kotamba. These fields were said to be inherited by the-woman on the death of her mother Mt. Mukti. She was to sell for Rs. 1,100 and was alleged to have executed a souda-chitti on 24th February 1924, having received Rs. 1,000, and agreeing to execute the sale deed within a month. She failed to do so. She was said to have executed a bogus sale-deed in defendant 2's favour on 12th April 1924, of the same fields. The plaintiff sued for specific performance of the contract of sale on payment of Rs. 100, the balance of the consideration.

2. For defendant 1 it was contended that on the death of her father Zingu, who owned the fields Survey Nos. 42 and 9, about 27 years ago his widows Deoki and Mukti enjoyed this land till their death. Deoki sold Survey No. 42 to Narayan and Tukaram 18 years ago and Mukti, i.e., defendant 1's mother, sold Survey No. 9 to Bhagoo Bhamti about 25 years ago. Defendant 1 was the sole heir of her father Zingu on the death of his widows and defendant 2 fraudulently got a sale deed from her on 12th April 1924, without giving her any writing about the agreement to give her Survey No. 9. One Punamchand who attested that sale deed undertook to fight out a litigation with defendant 2 and to give Survey No. 9 to defendant 1 and in order to do so he obtained thumb marks of defendant on blank papers. It was denied that defendant 1 ever entered into any contract of sale of the fields with the plaintiff or executed the souda-chitti, dated 24th February 1924 or received any consideration.

3. For defendant 2 it was denied that' defendant 1 executed the souda-chitti. It was said to be antedated, bogus fraudulent and fabricated after the sale-deed to defendant 2 to defraud him. Punamchand was said to have created it in the name of the plaintiff, his servant having himself attested defendant 2's-sale deed. Defendant 2 further contended that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the alleged contract of sale in plaintiff's favour and that as such the contract could not be enforced as against him.

4. The suit was tried on the following issues:

1 (a) Did defendant 1 agree to sell the fields in suit to plaintiff for valid consideration as per plaint?

(b) If so, did defendant 2 know of it at the date of his saledeed?

(c) Is the transaction under the souda patrak dated 24th February 1924, a real genuiue one?'

2 (a) Is the souda chitti dated 24th February 1924, antedated, bogus, fraudulent and fabricated to defraud defendant 2 as alleged?

(b) Is it obtained by one Punamchand under misrepresentation and fraud and under the circumstances alleged by defendant 1 Lin the plaintiff's name as alleged?

(c) Is the agreement under the souda chitthi in suit with plaintiff for an inadequate consideration as alleged?

3 (a) Is defendant 2 a bona fide purchaser of the property from defendant 1 without notice of the alleged agreement of sale with plaintiff?

(b) If so, can the plaintiff's agreement of sale be enforced by superseding defendant 2's saledeed in suit?

4. Is the plaintiff's claim not maintainable for not including the relief of possession as alleged?

5. Should the agreement of sale in suit be specifically enforced?

6. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

5. The Judge in his judgment, referring to the evidence adduced by the plaintiff writes:

It clearly reveals the fraudulent nature of the transaction embodied in the souda-patrak. It exposes Punamchand Marwari completely, though he had taken all care to screen himself in order to finance and fight; out the litigation as a third uninterested party. This he obviously did as he had attested the sale-deed in favour of defendant 2. I have carefull