VIRINDER AGGARWAL,J

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant No.3 against the judgment and decree dated 08.10.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant was dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 22.02.1994 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ajnala, has been upheld whereby the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The plaintiff/respondent no.1 instituted a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 03.06.1991 (Ex.P1) executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of land measuring 38 kanals 17 marlas. An amount of Rs.1,11,500/- was paid as earnest money. It was further stipulated therein that the sale deed was to be executed on “15th Maghar, 1991 Bikrami. Further, it was pleaded that defendant No.2 honoured the agreement by executing a sale deed qua his share and therefore did not contested the suit, whereas defendant No.1 failed to perform his obligation and, during pendency of the suit, alienated the property in favour of defendant No.3 (present appellant) vide sale deed dated 24.01.1992 (Ex.D1). The plaintiff asserted continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and sought enforcement of the agreement. Upon notice, suit was contested by defendant no.1 and appellant/defendant no.3 who filed their separate written statements and denied the allegations made in plaint.

3. Upon a meticulous examination of the pleadings and the competing claims of the parties, the learned Trial Court proceeded to frame the following issues for determination:-

1. Whether defendants No.1 and 2 agreed to sell the disputed land and executed agreement to sell dated 03.06.1991 in favour of the plaintiff after receiving an amount of Rs.11,500/- as earnest money? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP

3. If Issue No.1 is proved, whether execution of agreement dated 03.06.1991 is result of fraudulent/misrepresentation and is without consideration as alleged? OPD

4. Is this suit is not maintainable? OPD

5. Whether defendant No.3 is a bona fide purchaser of the suit land for valuable consideration without notice and as such is protected u nder Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit through his act and conduct? OPD

7. Relief.

4. Both parties were afforded full and adequate opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims and defences. The learned trial Court, upon a comprehensive evaluation of evidence, held that the agreement to sell stood duly proved and was supported by valid consideration. The plea of fraud was rejected. The plaintiff was found to be continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defence of bona fide purchaser set up by defendant No.3 was also negated. Consequently, the suit for specific performance was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent no.1. The findings of the learned Trial Court are based on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, including the testimony of PW-1 Sawaran Singh, marginal witness to the agreement, and PW-2 Harbhajan Singh (plaintiff), as well as the evidence led by the defendants including DW-4 Vijay Kumar, the stamp vendor, and DW-5 Raghbir Singh (defendant No.1), who, significantly, admitted his thumb impressions on the agreement though attempted to explain the same on grounds of fraud.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, only defendant No.3 preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, affirming the findings recorded by the Trial Court. The learned First Appellate Court, while re-appreciating the evidence including Ex.P1 and Ex.D1, concurred with the findings that th