1. This appeal is filed by defendant No.5, challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in RA No.42/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Ron, whereby the learned Civil Judge reversed the finding of the Principal Civil Judge Ron, in OS No.46/2005 by granting relief of specific performance.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
That the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of the contract against defendant Nos.1 to 4. It is alleged that defendant Nos.1 to 4 for their family and legal necessity agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.28,000/-and by receiving the entire consideration, they have executed an agreement of sale on 22.01.2004 in favour of the plaintiff. It is also contended that defendant No.3 was minor and on his behalf, defendant No.4 has executed the agreement of sale. The sale deed was not executed by defendants and the plaintiff has also published a notice on 17.09.2004 in local news paper. The defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed and hence, he filed a suit for specific performance of the contract and alternatively sought for refund of the earnest money.

4. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.1 to 4 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.5 by executing a sale deed dated 11.06.2009 for consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. As such, plaintiff impleaded defendant No.5 and sought for specific performance against him also. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed written statement disputing the agreement of sale and receipt of Rs.28,000/- towards sale consideration. Defendant No.5 has also filed the written statement after appearance and denied the suit agreement and he claims that he is the bona fide purchaser and he had no knowledge of the suit and he was not informed either by the plaintiff or by defendant Nos.1 to 4.

5. The plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and two witnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3 on his behalf. He placed reliance on 26 documents marked at Exs.P1 to P26. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have not adduced any oral evidence while defendant No.5 got examined himself as DW1 and another witness was examined as DW2.

6. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, answered issue No.1 and additional issue No.1 in the affirmative while issue Nos.2 and 3 were answered in the negative and issue No.4 is answered partly in the affirmative and thereby partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff by granting alternative relief of refund of earnest amount with interest at the rate of 6% interest p.a. as against defendant Nos.1 to 4 alone by dismissing the suit against defendant No.5.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed RA No.42/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ron. Before the First Appellate Court also defendant No.5 who is appellant herein was impleaded as respondent No.5 and the First Appellate Court, after re - appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, set aside the finding of the trial Court on issue Nos.2, 3 and additional issue No.1 by answering them in the affirmative and decreed the suit of the plaintiff by granting specific performance. Being aggrieved by this judgment, defendant No.5 is before this Court.

8. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are unrepresented.

9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant - defendant No.5 is that he has purchased the suit property under registered sale deed and hence, he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. He would assert that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the said aspect and the Appellate Court has erroneously reversed the finding and hence, he would seek for allowing the appeal by setting aside the finding of the First Appellate Court and restoring the finding of the t