A suit for specific performance of contract is barred by limitation if there is a laxness on the part of the plaintiff in not enforcing his right on the basis of the suit agreement, and the subsequent purchaser is a bonafide purchaser without notice if he has purchased the property for valuable consideration and has made appropriate enquiries about the nature of possession and title.

The

captioned

second

appeal

is

filed

by

unsuccessful

plaintiff

who

is

challenging

the

concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts

below who have refused to grant discretionary relief of

specific performance of contract and have ordered for

refund with interest at the rate of 18%.

Facts leading to the above stated case are

as follows:

The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for specific

performance

of

contract

by

contending

that

respondent No.1/defendant No.1 offered to sell the

suit property in his favour and accordingly entered

into an agreement by executing an agreement to sell

on 05.06.1996 for a sale consideration of Rs.20,000/-.

The appellant/plaintiff has further contended that

pursuant to the said agreement to sell, he paid an

earnest money of Rs.15,000/- and that he was ever

ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It

4

was also contended that respondent No.1/defendant

No.1 delivered possession as per the recitals in the

agreement

to

sell.

The

present

suit

in

O.S.No.332/1999 was filed on 16.10.1999 after

issuing legal notice when appellant/plaintiff found that

the 1^st defendant has sold the suit schedule property

under a registered sale deed dated 26.04.1999.

Respective parties have let in ocular and

documentary evidence in support of their contentions.

The

Trial

Court

having

perused

the

oral

and

documentary evidence has answered Issue Nos.1 to 3

in

the

affirmative

by

holding

that

the

appellant/plaintiff has proved due execution of suit

agreement

and

payment

of

earnest

money

of

Rs.15,000/-. The Trial Court has also recorded a

finding that the appellant/plaintiff has proved his

readiness and willingness. However, the Trial Court

has answered Issue Nos.4 & 7 in the affirmative by

holding that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff is

5

barred by limitation and has further held that the 2^nd

defendant is a bonafide purchaser without notice and

has proceeded to dismiss the suit filed by the

appellant/plaintiff.

The appellant/plaintiff preferred regular

appeal in R.A.No.16/2010 before the II Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Gokak. The First Appellate Court on

re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has

concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court

on Issue No.6 and thereby point No.4 is answered in

the

negative.

The

First

Appellant

Court

while

answering point No.4 has come to conclusion that

except bald allegations, the appellant/plaintiff has not

placed

on

record

any

clinching

evidence

to

demonstrate that the transaction between defendant

No.1 and 2 is a collusive transaction and that the 2^nd

defendant is not bonafide purchaser for valuable

consideration. On these set of reasons, the First

Appellate Court has concurred with the findings of the

6

Trial Court and has dismissed the appeal. The

appellant

is

before

this

Court

questioning

the

concurrent judgment and decree of the Courts below.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

learned counsel for the respondents.

6.

The appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit for

specific performance of contract. The agreement is

dated 05.06.1996. The appellant/plaintiff claims that

he was put in possession by the 1^st respondent/ owner

who has delivered possession pursuant to the

agreement after receipt of Rs.15,000/- as earnest

money.

The

records

clearly

reveals

that

the

agreement to sell dated 05.06.1996, whereas the suit

is filed on 16.10.1999. Though, time is not stipulated

in the suit agreement. However, this Court would find

that there is a laxness on the part of appellant/plaintiff

in not enforcing his right on the basis of suit

agreement. The second defendant has succeeded in

7

establishing that he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit

schedule property for valuable consideration.

7.

It is a trite law that the purchaser is

required to make appropriate enquiry and burden is

on the purchaser to establish his bonafides. Since

subsequent purchaser is deemed to have notice under

Explanation-II of Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act,

the purchaser has to mak