Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties.

The plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of

specific performance based on the agreement to the extent of 1

acre and out of that, based on the sale deed as well as the

Power of Attorney executed by the original owner, he has sold

- 4 -

the 30 cents of the property and remaining 20 cents of the

property, sale deed has not been executed and hence, notice

was issued and filed a suit for the relief of possession.

Defendant No.7 who is the appellant herein claimed that he is a

bonafide purchaser and he has purchased the property on

16.09.2010 to the extent of 20 cents.

The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of

both the parties framed an additional issue with regard to

whether he is a bonafide purchaser and the Trial Court also

while answering the additional issue No.1 in paragraph No.12,

taken note of admission given by the defendant No.7 that he is

aware about the previous agreement for sale and also taken

note of the further admission given by him that though aware

of the earlier agreement he felt that they are the selling the

property which is not the suit schedule property and different

property. Hence, answered additional issue No.1 in the

negative and the Trial Court decreed the suit.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the

Trial Court an appeal is filed by the appellant in RA 164/2016

and the First Appellate Court also on considering the grounds

urged in the appeal memo has also taken note of both oral and

- 5 -

documentary evidence and formulated the point as whether the

defendant No.7 proves that he is the bonafide purchaser of suit

schedule property and whether the impugned judgment and

decree requires any interference.

The First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of

both oral and documentary evidence particularly considering

the evidence of defendant No.4 and 7 who have been examined

as DW1 and DW2, though relied upon the sale deed dated

16.09.2010 and taken note of admission given by them that

even though having the knowledge about earlier sale

agreement, in spite of it the same is purchased, though reason

is given that he was under impression that the property was

not sold which is the subject matter of the sale agreement and

answer elicited from the mouth of witnesses, both the Trial

Court as well as the First appellate Court also comes to the

conclusion that he is not a bonafide purchaser.

It is also important to note that he is also the

relative of agreement holder and his father is one of the

attesting witness to the said sale agreement. The same is also

considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate

- 6 -

Court. Hence, the Courts below have not accepted the

contention that he is a bonafide purchaser. Hence, dismissed

the appeal.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Trial

Court as well as the First Appellate Court, against the

concurrent finding, the present appeal is filed and the counsel

for appellant would vehemently contend that he is the bonafide

purchaser, he has purchased the property for valuable sale

consideration. Both the Courts have committed an error in not

coming to the conclusion that he is a bonafide purchaser and

also contend that the sale agreement dated 17.03.1989 and

the suit filed in the year 2012, that too after 23 years. The fact

that the sale agreement was executed and possession was

delivered and also the power of attorney was executed in

favour of the plaintiff and consequent upon the sale agreement

as well as the power of attorney, 80 cents of property was sold

by plaintiff and only he retained 20 cents of land and also filed

notice given against the defendant and original vendor, since

the original vendor no more, legal representatives of original

vendor were brought on record and having considered the

material on record, I do not find any error committed by the

- 7 -

Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court in decreeing the

suit.

8.

The counsel