T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE third defendant is the purchaser, after the agreement of sale which sale has ended in a decree for specific performance, who is the appellant before this Court. The fact there was an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and for specific performance the suit came to be filed and ultimately the suit has been decreed by the Courts below cannot be disputed. ( 2 ) NOW the short question in the second appeal would be whether the appellant-third defendant is the bona fide purchaser. After the dictum of the Supreme Court that in such a situation, it is such kind of purchaser who can only prove before the Court whether their purchase is bona fide or not and they cannot be allowed to embark upon to call for adjudication on any other point. Now normally a bona fide purchaser is not expected to know the agreement. But in this case it so happened that the Sub-Registrar admitted the existence of the agreement of sale and who in turn informed the same to the appellant. Despite such information the appellant has taken the risk of purchasing the property. In fact, it is one case where the Sub-Registrar himself was examined as P. W. 3. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold in confirmation of the Courts below that the defendant 3 is not the bona fide purchaser entitled to any other benefits out of the transaction. ( 3 ) IN all fairness, the learned Counsel has brought to my notice the dictum of the Supreme Court in Durga Prasad and Another v Deep chand and Others, as to the form of decree that should be followed in such cases. The observation of the Supreme Court is extracted below:"where there is a sale of the same property in favour of a prior and subsequent transferee and the subsequent transferee has, under the conveyance outstanding in his favour paid, the purchase-money to the vendor then in a suit for specific performance brought by the prior transferee in case he succeeds, the question arises as to the proper form of decree in such a case. The practice of the Courts in India has not been uniform and three distinct lines of thought emerge. The practice of the Courts in India has not been uniform and three distinct lines of thought emerge. According to one point of view, the proper form of decree is to declare the subsequent purchase void as against the prior transferee and direct conveyance by the vendor alone. A second point considers that both vendor and vendee should join, while a third would limit execution of the conveyance to the subsequent purchase alone. According to the Supreme court, the proper form of decree is to direct specific performance of the contract between the vendor and the prior transferee and direct the subsequent transferee to join in the conveyance so as to pass on the title which resides in him to the prior transferee. He does not join in any special covenants made between the prior transferee and his vendor; all he does is to pass on his title to the prior transferee". ( 4 ) NOW that the judgment of the Supreme Court is brought to my notice, I cannot ignore it nor act contrary to it. But at the same time, I feel it is my duty to implement such decree in the decree that has been passed by the Courts below. Therefore, exercising my powers under section 103, Civil Procedure Code, I direct that the decree of the Courts below should be modified directing the appellant also to join in execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. By this direction the appellant also becomes a judgment-debtor to comply with the terms of the decree. ( 5 ) IN this view, the second appeal is dismissed and the decree of the trial Court is modified incorporating the dictum of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the decree has to follow from this Court in substitution of the trial Court incorporating the dictum of the Supreme Court. --- *** --- .