N.C. SHARMA, J.—This is a second appeal by Harakchand against the appellate decree of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated November 7, 1974 whereby the said Judge reversed the decree of the Munsif Jodhpur District dated April, 11, 1972 and dismissed the plaintiffs suit for specific performance of contract to sell a plot situated in village Dhunara Tehsil Jodhpur. 2. Facts leading to the filing to this second appeal are that on December 6, 1966 plaintiff appellant Harakchand instituted Civil Original Suit No. 147 of 1966 against the respondents with the averments that a plot of land detailed and described in para 1 of the plaint as Talia and situated in village Dhunara Tehsil Jodhpur belonged to Purshottam defendant No. 1. On November 27, 1964 an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and Purshottam at Ahmedabad whereby the latter agreed to sell this plot to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 700/-. An agreement to sell was executed in that respect on the said date at Ahmedabad. The plaintiff paid the entire consideration amount of Rs. 700/- to Purshottam and the latter agreed to get a sale deed registered of the said plot in favour of the plaintiff after coming to Jodhpur with in a month or l-1/3 months. Thereafter the plaintiff reminded Purshottam to execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the suit plot in favour of the plaintiff and to deliver its possession to him, but the latter avoided to do so. On September 2, 1966 Purshottam sold this polt of land to Sohanraj defendant No.2 for a sum of Rs. 991/- and got a sale deed registered in favour of Sohanraj. It was alleged that Sohanraj was aware of the prior agreement to sell having been executed by Purshottam in favour of the plaintiff and despite knowledge of the agreement, he got a sale deed of the plot registered in his favour from Purshottam on September 2, 1966. The plaintiff prayed for a decree of specific performance of contract. In the alternative, the plaintiff prayed that a decree for Rs. 1200/- be passed against the defendants. 3. Purshottam defendant No. 1 could not be personally served and, therefore, substituted service was effected on him. The purchaser Sohanraj appeared and contested the suit. The plaintiff prayed for a decree of specific performance of contract. In the alternative, the plaintiff prayed that a decree for Rs. 1200/- be passed against the defendants. 3. Purshottam defendant No. 1 could not be personally served and, therefore, substituted service was effected on him. The purchaser Sohanraj appeared and contested the suit. The sum and substance of defence of defendant No. 2 was that he had no knowledge of the alleged agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. He had made enquiries and he did not come to know of any such agreement. He alleged that he had purchased the suit plot for valuable consideration in good faith and without notice of the alleged agreement to sell. 4. The trial court held that Purshottam defendant No. 1 had executed the agreement to sell Ex. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and in respect of the suit plot on November 27, 1964 for a consideration of an amount of Rs. 700/- On a consideration of the evidence, the trial court held that Sohanraj had knowledge of the above agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff when he purchased the suit plot for Rs. 991/- from Purshottam and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance of the contract. He therefore, decreed the plaintiffs suit for specific performance. 5. Aggrieved by this decree Sohanraj purchaser filed Civil First Appeal No. 45 of 1973 which was decided by the Additional District Judge No. 2 Jodhpur on November 7, 1974. The Additional District Judge reversed the findings of the trial court on issue No. 4 and be held that Sohanraj was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of the prior agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. He, therefore, dismissed the plaintiffs suit for specific performance of contract. However, he passed a decree for Rs. 700/- with proportionate costs against Purshottam. The plaintiff has come in this second appeal to this Court. 6. The learned counsel for plaintiff appellant contended that Sohanraj had constructive or implied notice of the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and be wilfully abstained from making enquiry. Thus he challenged the findings of the Additional District Judge on issue No. 4. The learned counsel for Sohanraj purchaser supported the decree of the first appellate court. 7. The learned counsel for plaintiff appellant contended that Sohanraj had constructive or implied notice of the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and be wilfully abstained from making enquiry. Thus he challenged the findings of the Additional District Judge on issue No. 4. The learned counsel for Sohanraj purchaser supported the decree of the first appellate court. 7. It is not in dispute that the suit plot is situate in village Dhunara, Tehsil Jodhpur. It is also not in dispute that Purshottam who was the owner of this plot, used to reside at Ahmedabad where he was runnig the business of making gold ornaments. The agreement to sell Ex. 1 in favour of the plaintiff was executed on November 27, 1964 not at village Dhunara in Tehsil Jodhpur but was executed at Ahmedabad. So far as Sohanraj whs concerned he was resident of village Dhunara. Obviously, therefore, Sohanraj could have no knowledge of an agreement to sell which was executed at a distant place i e. at Ahmedabad and not at village Dhunara to which the party belonged and where the suit plot of land was situate. It is admitted by he plaintiff that he had no talks with Sohanraj regarding this agreement to sell. There was no assertain by the plaintiff that possession of the suit plot had been delivered to him by Purshottam when the agreement to sell Ex. 1 was executed or at any subsequent time. Thus Sohanraj could not even know that the plaintiff was having even any possessory interest under the doctrine of part performance, in relation to the suit shop. The agreement Ex.1 was not a registered document. It was scribed by plaintiffs own brother Nemichand at Ahmedabad. It is also clear that although the agreement to sell Ex.. 1 was executed on November 27, 1964 and it was agreed thereunder that Purshottam would execute the sale deed and got the same registered within a month or so after coming to Jodhpur but the plaintiff never gave any notice to Purshottam asking him to comply with the terms of the agreement. It clearly appears that the defendant No. 2 was completely in dark about any such agreement to sell having been executed by Purshottam in favour of the plaintiff. It clearly appears that the defendant No. 2 was completely in dark about any such agreement to sell having been executed by Purshottam in favour of the plaintiff. In the sale deed which was got registered by Purshottam in favour of Sohanraj on September 2, 1966 it was represented by Purshottam that the plot in question belonged to him and was in his possession, that he was its exclusive owner and it was free from any incumbrance etc. Thus so far as Purshottam is concerned he represented to Sohanraj that the suit plot was free from any incumbrance or liability. 8. On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant much reliance was placed on the statement of Shivraj P.W. 3 who has deposed that Sohanraj had requested him to tell to the plaintiff that the latter may take an amount of Rs. 100/-or Rs. 200/- more and allow Sohanraj to purchase the suit plot of land. Sohanraj has denied any such request having been made by him to Shivraj. It is pertinent to note that even the plaintiff himself in his statement did not state that Shivraj approached him from the side of Sohanraj or made to him the request that Sohanraj was willing to pay some more amount to the plaintiff. Had this version been true, the plaintiff would have definitely said so. Sohanraj defendant had stated that when the sale deed was executed Banshilal who is related to Purshottam was present and nothing was said to him with regard to any agreement to sell. It is not in dispute that so far as plaintiff is concerned, he himself did not have any talk with Sohanraj in this respect. On a correct appreciation of evidence, the Additional District Judge has rightly held that Sohanraj was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of the prior agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. 9. I may also deal with certain decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant. The first decision relied upon is in the case of Dr. Govinddas vs. Smt. Shantibai (1). In that case there was direct evidence that after the agreement to sell had been executed at Vakil Sahabs house, the purchaser Gordhandas met the plaintiffs husband and inquired as to why he was accompanied by so many persons, and the purchaser was informed about the agreement to sale. Govinddas vs. Smt. Shantibai (1). In that case there was direct evidence that after the agreement to sell had been executed at Vakil Sahabs house, the purchaser Gordhandas met the plaintiffs husband and inquired as to why he was accompanied by so many persons, and the purchaser was informed about the agreement to sale. The statement of the plaintiff was corroborated by Hayatkhan and Chaarjulal. Thus there was express notice to the purchaser regarding prior agreement to sell. Apart from that all the parties were residents in the same vicinity. In a place like that, it was not probable that the purchaser would not come to know of the execution of the agreement. Again there was an element of haste with which the sale deed in favour of the appellant was executed and that was unusual. The evidence of the appellant was contradictory and the evidence that they did not measure the property in dispute was not accepted. In such circumstances, it was held that the onus of proof which lay on the purchasers had not been dicharged in the circumstances and in view of the evidence in that case. On the other hand, it appeared that the appellant purchaser had express notice of the contract. Facts in the present case are completely distinguishable from the above case before the Supreme Court. In the present case, the agreement to sell Ex 1 was not executed in the vicinity where the suit land is situated but was executed at Ahmedabad where Sohanraj was not and could not be present. There had never been any conversation between Sohanraj and the plaintiff regarding this plot of land. The statement of Shivraj P.W. 3 does not find corroboration even from the statement of the plaintiff himself. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that Sohanraj had notice of the prior agreement to sell. 10. The next decision relied upon is in the case of Asharam vs. Bhanwar-lal (2). It may be stated firstly, in relation to this decision that the defendant was in possession of the property in question and, therefore, plaintiff No. 2 was imputed implied notice of the agreement and of the part performance thereof. 10. The next decision relied upon is in the case of Asharam vs. Bhanwar-lal (2). It may be stated firstly, in relation to this decision that the defendant was in possession of the property in question and, therefore, plaintiff No. 2 was imputed implied notice of the agreement and of the part performance thereof. In the present case the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit plot of land under the agreement to sell and therefore, it cannot be said that the purchaser had constructive or implied notice of the prior agreement to sell. In Asharams case (supra) Explanation 2 to section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act applied which has no application in the present case. A person is said to have notice of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstantation from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made or gross negligence, he would have known it. As already stated, there is no question of express knowledge in the instant case and it cannot be said that the plaintiff wilfully abstained from enquiry or search. When the purchaser had not the slightest idea or suspicion of any earlier agreement or charge over the suit plot of any body else, it cannot be said that there was wilful abstantation or gross negligence on the part of the purchaser, I am, therefore, of the opinion that the finding of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur on issue No. 1 in favour of the defendants is correct and he had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract in relation to the suit property. As already stated, the Additional District Judge has already passed a decree for Rs. 700/-as against Purshottam. 11. This second appeal has no force in it and it is hereby dismissed with costs to Sohanlal respondent No. 1.