JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 5, 1977 passed by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar by which the suit of the respondent-plaintiff Kartar Singh against appellant-defendant No. 2 Karam Singh and Pritam Singh defendant No. 1 for specific performance of the contract was decreed. 2. The plaint averments were that on May 26, 1973 Kartar Singh and Pritam Singh entered into an agreement for the sale of the house detailed in Para- 1 of the plaintiff for Rs. 12,000/- and executed the agreement Ex. 1 on the same day. An amount of Rs. 5000/- was given by Kartar Singh to Pritam Singh on the same day, as advance money and it was stipulated in die agreement that the remaining amount would be paid by June, 5, 1973 and after taking the amount Pritam Singh would get the sale deed registered. On May 27, 1973, Kartar Singh asked Pritam Singh to get the sale deed registered but he told him that he was busy and would get the sale deed registered prior to the stipulated date. Pritam Singh, thereafter entered into a transaction with Karam Singh appellant for sale of the same house for an amount of Rs. 14,000/-. Kartar Singh having come to know about this transaction gave notice to Pritam Singh and Karam Singh the subsequent purchaser. Despite that, on May 28, 1973 Pritam Singh sold the house through a registered sale deed to Karam Singh. 3. Kartar Singh filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against Pritam Singh and Karam Singh. In the written statement Pritam Singh admitted the execution of the agreement Ex. 1 on May 26, 1973 but stated that on the very next day i.e., on May 27,1973 Kartar Singh cancelled the agreement and therefore, he sold the disputed house to Karam Singh through a registered sale deed. It has also been stated that he was prepared to return the amount of Rs. 5000/-received by him as advance money to Kartar Singh. Defendant No. 2, appellant Karam Singh expressed his ignorance about any transaction or agreement between Pritam Singh and Kartar Singh and stated that he was a bona fide purchaser with consideration and decree for specific performance cannot be passed because between Pritam Singh and Kartar Singh there was an agreement for refund of the amount of Rs. 5000/-. 4. Defendant No. 2, appellant Karam Singh expressed his ignorance about any transaction or agreement between Pritam Singh and Kartar Singh and stated that he was a bona fide purchaser with consideration and decree for specific performance cannot be passed because between Pritam Singh and Kartar Singh there was an agreement for refund of the amount of Rs. 5000/-. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, initially five Issues were framed which translated into english read as under:- 1. Whether the plaintiff on the next day of the execution of the agreement cancelled the same stating that he did not want to purchase the house because it was costing much and if so, what is its effect on the suit (Defendant No. 1). 2. Whether the condition of Rs. 5000/-is penal and as such is not recoverable? (Defendant No. 1). 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance (Plaintiff). 4. Whether plaintiff has any cause of action against defendant No. 2 (Plaintiff). 5. Relief. 5. On March 7, 1975 two more Issues were framed and Issue No. 5 was changed into Issue No. 7. The two newly framed Issues translated into english read as under:- 5. Whether defendant No. 2, is a bona fide purchaser without notice and purchased the property after paying the market value for the same (defendant No. 2). 6. Whether in view of the objections raised by defendant No. 2 in his written statement, the decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff would not be legal and judicious, (defendant No. 2). 6. Kartar Singh appeared in the witness box as P.W. 1 and examined Madan Singh (P.W. 2), Hardeep Singh (P.W. 3), Vishan Singh (P.W. 4), Hari Singh (P.W. 5) and Mool Chand (P.W. 6). From the side of defendants, both the defendants Pritam Singh (D.W. 1) and Karam Singh (D.W. 2) appeared in the witness box and examined one more witness Amar Singh (D.W. 3). All the Issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and a decree for specific performance was passed in favour of the plaintiff and it was ordered that on plaintiffs depositing the remaining amount of Rs. 7000/-, in the Court, the defendants shall get the sale deed registered in his favour and handover the possession of the property to him. Defendant No. 2 was held entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 7000/-, in the Court, the defendants shall get the sale deed registered in his favour and handover the possession of the property to him. Defendant No. 2 was held entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 7000/-, so deposited by the plaintiff. Both the defendants were saddled with the costs of the suit. 7. Feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and decree referred to above, Karam Singh, defendant No. 2 the purchaser of the property from Pritam Singh, defendant No. 1, has preferred this appeal in this Court 8. Mr. Rajendra Mahta, learned Counsel for appellant has confined his arguments to Issues No.i and 5 only. It has been strenuously contended that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of Pritam Singh that on the very next day of the transaction plaintiff told him that the cost is excessive and he, therefore, wants to cancel the transaction and that he would return agreement Ex. 1 and take back the money. 9. Mr. B.R. Arora, learned Counsel for the respondents controverted this argument and submitted that there was no reason for the plaintiff to cancel the transaction and if that would have been his intention, he would have immediately taken his money by returning the document, as his house is said to be close to the place where he is said to have expressed his desire to cancel the transaction. 10. The learned Judge while discussing the evidence on Issue No. 1 has rightly observed that there are sufficient circumstances to suggest that Pritam Singh had sold the property to Karam Singh because of the greed of Rs. 2000/-. If the plaintiffs intention would have been to cancel the transaction, he would not have taken Hardeep Singh (P.W. 3) and others to the house of Pritam Singh for asking him to execute the document nor would he have issued notice to Pritam Singh and Karam Singh on May 28, 1973, the date on which the sale-deed in favour of Karam Singh was registered. Apart from it, the burden of Issue No. 1 was on defendant No. 1 Pritam Singh and that Issue has been decided against him. Pritam Singh having not preferred appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge, the decree has become final against him. Hence, the finding for Issue No. 1 calls for no interference. 11. Apart from it, the burden of Issue No. 1 was on defendant No. 1 Pritam Singh and that Issue has been decided against him. Pritam Singh having not preferred appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge, the decree has become final against him. Hence, the finding for Issue No. 1 calls for no interference. 11. Issue No, 5 is the most important Issue in the case so far as appellant Karam Singh is concerned. His case is that he was a bona fide purchaser of the property without knowledge of the previous agreement between Pritam Singh and Kartar Singh. The case of the plaintiff is that he had told defendant No. 2 in the evening of May 26,1973 that he had entered into a transaction regarding the house with Pritam Singh. It has also been stated by the plaintiff that there was a rumour that Karam Singh was intending to purchase the house and having come to know about it on May 27, 1973, he took the Panchayat i.e., Hardeep Singh, Vishan Singh, Hari Singh and Madan Singh to the house of respondent No. 1 and before going there, he had gone to the house of Karam Singh and asked him not to purchase the property as he had already purchased it from Pritam Singh. It has also been stated by him that Karam Singh had told him in the morning that because of the Panchas asking him not to purchase the property, he would not purchase the same. 12. Mr. Rajendra Mehta, vehemently argued that the plaintiff has not mentioned the fact of; informing Karam Singh about the transaction of the house with Pritam Singh in the notice and the writ petition. That, it is a subsequent thought that such talk had transpired between Karam Singh and Kartar Singh in order to establish that Karam Singh was a purchaser with knowledge of the previous transaction. This story about informing to Kartar Singh has been subsequently developed. It has also been argued that in the plaint, the details of the information to Karam Singh have not been stated. 13. Mr. This story about informing to Kartar Singh has been subsequently developed. It has also been argued that in the plaint, the details of the information to Karam Singh have not been stated. 13. Mr. Arora submitted that on 28th itself notices were given by the plaintiff to Pritam Singh and Karam Singh and the fact of Kartar Singh, in the presence of Hardeep Singh and others, asking Karam Singh not to purchase the property not being mentioned in the notice would not affect his in case. 14. True it is that in the plaint, it has not been mentioned that the plaintiff had asked Kartar Singh not to purchase the property as he had already purchased the same. However, in the replica it has been stated that defendant No. 2 was not a bona fide purchaser as on May 26, 1973 he had the knowledge of the execution of the agreement for sale by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and that, in the presence of the witnesses he was asked by the plaintiff not to purchase the property but despite that he had purchased the property. That, notice was also given to him in that regard by the plaintiff. Hence, it can not be said that this has not been pleaded by the plaintiff. 15. Mr. Mehta, emphatically argued that there was no occasion or necessity for the plaintiff to inform Karan Singh about the transaction between him and Pritam Singh on May 26, 1973. 16. It is the admitted position that Karam Singh is the real brother-in-law of Kartar Singh and their houses are adjacent. Such being the relationship there was nothing unnatural in Kartar Singh telling the fact of his purchasing the house from Pritam Singh to Karam Singh. In the notice Ex. 3, it has been mentioned that the house in dispute was the same which Pritam Singh had purchased from Karam Singh and that Kartar Singh had come to know that Karam Singh was intending to purchase that property again and Pritam Singh is concealing the fact of the transaction with Kartar Singh and as such Karam Singh should not purchase the property. It is no bodys case that relations between Karam Singh and Kartar Singh were not cordial. It is no bodys case that relations between Karam Singh and Kartar Singh were not cordial. In such circumstances, Kartar Singh informing his brother-in-law Karam Singh residing in the adjacent house, about the transaction entered into with Pritam Singh appears to be quite natural. Kartar Singh has examined Hardeep Singh, Vishan Singh and Hari Singh to substantiate his case that on 27th he, along with those three persons and one Kamail Singh, had gone to the house of Karam Singh and asked him not to purchase the property as the same had already been purchased by Kartar Singh. Mr. Mehta, submitted that this story should not have been believed, firstly, because the witnesses are related to Kartar Singh and secondly, because Kamail Singh, the fourth Panch has not been examined. When three witnesses have been examined, it is not necessary that fourth one also a relative should lie examined to narrate the same facts. Kartar Singh was in trouble and at such moments it was natural for him to call his relatives to accompany him to the house of Karam Singh to ask him not to purchase the property and to the house of Pritam Singh to ask him not to commit the breach of contract between him and Kartar Singh. It is pertinent to note that Hardeep Singh is the common relative of Karam Singh and Kartar Singh. He happens to be the brother-in-law of both of them. The learned trial Judge has, therefore, rightly placed reliance on him. Mr. Mehta has argued that Karam Singh has stated that he has strained relations with Hardeep Singh but no such question has been put to Hardeep Singh and therefore, the learned trial Judge was correct in his conclusion that Hardeep Singh being a common relative of Karam Singh and Kartar Singh was the proper person to be approached by Kartar Singh. Hardeep Singh has stated that as Karam Singh was his relative he asked him not to purchase the property for which Kartar Singh had already entered into an agreement with Pritam Singh. The statements of the plaintiff and his witnesses sufficiently prove that Karam Singh had been informed about the transaction on 27th itself and his purchasing the property on 28th cannot be said to be without knowledge. The findings of the learned District Judge for Issue No. 5 based on sound reasonings call for no interference. 17. The statements of the plaintiff and his witnesses sufficiently prove that Karam Singh had been informed about the transaction on 27th itself and his purchasing the property on 28th cannot be said to be without knowledge. The findings of the learned District Judge for Issue No. 5 based on sound reasonings call for no interference. 17. Consequently, the appeal having no substance dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******