This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the

learned counsel for the appellant.

This appeal is filed by the appellant i.e., subsequent

purchaser of the property, that too, when the suit was pending

before the Trial Court for the relief of specific performance

which was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs based on the sale

agreement and also when there was an order of injunction, not

to alienate the property.

The very contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant is that he is the bonafide purchaser of the property

and the fact that suit was pending and there was an interim

order not to alienate the property is not in dispute. Both the

Courts have taken note of the execution of the document of

sale agreement dated 27.02.2011, wherein an earnest money

of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid in favour of the original owner, out

of sale consideration of Rs.6,25,000/- and within a span of

eight months, the appellant-defendant No.3 has purchased the

- 4 -

property from the defendant No.1 on 16.02.2012 and the Trial

Court comes to the conclusion that the suit is hit by lis pendens

and when the material discloses that there was already a sale,

the defendant No.1, who had executed the sale agreement did

not contest the matter and disputing the very fact that there

was an agreement of sale and the purchaser i.e., the appellant

has purchased the property when the suit was pending for the

relief of specific performance and when there was an order of

injunction not to alienate the property, the appellant ought to

have enquired into the matter and instead, he has purchased

the property within a span of five months of the suit filed for

the relief of specific performance and both the Courts

considered the material on record that defendant No.1 had

executed the sale agreement and received the earnest money

of Rs.1,00,000/- and also taken note of the fact that said

transaction has taken place between this appellant-defendant

No.3 and defendant No.1 during the pendency of the suit and

also the fact that the transaction has taken place in violation of

the order of the Court. Hence, comes to the conclusion that he

is not a bonafide purchaser and when such concurrent finding is

given by the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court, the

- 5 -

very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he

is the bonafide purchaser cannot be considered.

Admittedly,

the

appellant

has

purchased

the

property when the suit was pending and also when there was

an order of injunction not to alienate the property to anyone

and also there was no any sale agreement between the

appellant-defendant No.3 and defendant No.1 and directly the

appellant had purchased the property vide sale deed dated

16.02.2012. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel

for the appellant that he is the bonafide purchaser cannot be

accepted. Therefore, I do not find any ground to admit and

frame any substantial question of law and if any fraud is played

by defendant No.1 in favour of appellant-defendant No.3, as

contended, he has to take action against him in accordance

with law. Hence, it is not a fit case to invoke Section 100 of

CPC to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87