JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—Being-aggrieved, the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nahan, thereby partly dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: 3. The plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of a Contract of sale of land comprising Khasra Nos. 406/305/208/ 134/2/5 measuring 9 biswas, khata khatauni No. 8/16 min situate in Mauza Shamsherpur, pehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. (here-in-after referred to as the suit land) against the respondents/defendants (here-in-after referred to as the defendants). His case as made out in the plaint_is that the defendant No. 1 was owner in possession of land comprising khata khatauni No. 8/ 16 min, khasra Nos. 406/305/208/134 measuring 1-3 bigha as a whole and sold different portions thereof to different persons in February, 1982 leaving behind 9 biswas which was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff for consideration in the sum of Rs. 4,000/ - by a written agreement for sale. The plaintiff paid the sale consideration to defendant No. 1 at the time of execution of the agreement and receipt was also executed on the second page of the agreement for sale and the actual possession of the land agreed to be sold to the plaintiff, that is the suit land, was delivered to the plaintiff prior to the execution of the said agreement for sale. It was also mutually agreed to between the parties to the agreement that In case the area possession where of was handed-over to the plaintiff exceeds 9 biswas the plaintiff would pay the price of the surplus area to the said defendant at the contractual rates, The plaintiff had always been willing to perform his part of the contract but defendant No. 1 had been putting of the execution of the sale deed and registration thereof on false and flimsy pretext. Therefore, the plaintiff served defendant with a notice dated 30.8.1983 but the defendant declined to execute the sale deed on the plea that the sale consideration in fact was Rs. 9,000/- which plea was concocted and false. Therefore, the plaintiff served defendant with a notice dated 30.8.1983 but the defendant declined to execute the sale deed on the plea that the sale consideration in fact was Rs. 9,000/- which plea was concocted and false. On being contacted by the plaintiff several times the defendant agreed to execute the sale deed on 17.12.1982 but again refused to execute the sale deed on the plea that he wanted to ascertain the actual area of the land in possession of the plaintiff by demarcation before execution and registration of the sale deed, whereas the defendant had got the suit land demarcated and the area was found to be 9 biswas only. Thereafter the defendant illegally and mala fide sold 4 biswas of land out of the suit land in favour of defendant No. 2 who is his near relation. Defendant No. 2 knew that defendant No. 1 had already sold 9 biswas of land to the plaintiff and no other land was available with the defendant No. 1 for sale. It is further claimed that the defendant No. 2 in collusion and connivance with defendant No. 1 is now trying to take forcible possession of the suit land on the basis of the registered sale deed executed in his favour by the defendant No. 1. Hence, the present suit. 4. The defendents contested the suit. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement stated that out of the land khasra Nos. 406/305/ 208/134 measuring 2 bighas 13 biswas he sold 10 biswas of land each to Bhupinder Singh, Harpreet Singh, Shrawan Singh, Partap Singh all near relatives of the plaintiff who negotiated the transactions @ Rs. 10,000/- each. However, the sale price was mentioned as Rs. 4,000/- in the sale deeds because the negotiator-plaintiff wanted to save the stamp duty and registration charges. In fact the aforesaid entire land was purchased by the plaintiff but being a non-agriculturist he could not purchase more than 10 biswas of land in his name hence purchases were made in favour of his close relations /friends. The executibn of the agreement to sell has been admitted but it has been claimed that the sale consideration was Rs. 9,000/- and not Rs. 4,000/-. A sum of Rs. 4,000/- was received by the answering defendant and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- was to be paid before the execution of sale deed. The executibn of the agreement to sell has been admitted but it has been claimed that the sale consideration was Rs. 9,000/- and not Rs. 4,000/-. A sum of Rs. 4,000/- was received by the answering defendant and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- was to be paid before the execution of sale deed. Delivery of the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff as claimed in the plaint has been denied and it is averred that the possession was to be delivered only after the receipt of the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 5,000/- which was never paid by the plaintiff. In the event of variation in the measurement of the land agreed to be sold the sale consideration was agreed to be amended accordingly. The answering defendant has further claimed that he has been ready to perform his part of the contract but it was the plaintiff who declined to perform his part of the contract i.e. payment of the balance amount of Rs. 5,000/ -. Sale of four biswas of land by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 has been admitted but it has been claimed that this sale was made out of the 13 biswas of land which after other sales remained with defendant No. 1. Any collusion between the answering defendant and defendant No. 2 has been denied. The other averments in the plaint have also been denied. 5. Defendant No. 2 in his written statement denied any knowledge about the agreement for sale of land between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 regarding land measuring 9 biswas and claimed that as per the revenue record defendant No. 1 was shown to be the owner of 13 biswas of land. It is further claimed that he purchased 4 biswas of land from defendant No. 1 out of 13 biswas of land of which the defendant No. 1 was owner for consideration in the sum of Rs. 8,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 25.8.1983 and defendant No. 1 delivered possession thereof to him and thus he is owner in possession of four biswas of land and is a bona fide purchaser for value. 8,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 25.8.1983 and defendant No. 1 delivered possession thereof to him and thus he is owner in possession of four biswas of land and is a bona fide purchaser for value. It has also been averred that the tatima relied upon by the plaintiff had been procured in collusion with the Patwari and since the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale about 9 biswas of land with defendant No. 1, therefore, he has no claim over the remaining four biswas purchased by the answering defendant. Rest of the averments in the plaint have been denied. 6. The plaintiff filed replication wherein he denied the grounds of defence as taken in the written statements and re-affirmed the claim as made in the plaint. 7. On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Judge framed the following issues: 1. Whether the defendant No. 1 entered into the agreements dated 18.8.1981 and 12.2.1982 for the sale of the suit land with the plaintiff as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the suit land actually measuring 2.9 bighas on the spot as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is willing and proposed to perform as part of the contract? OPP 4. If issue No. 1 is not proved, whether the defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff at the rate of 1,000/- per biswas as alleged? OPD-1 5. Whether the defendant No. 2 is honafide purchaser for value over 4 biswas of the suit land? OPD-2 6. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as alleged, if so its effect? OPP 7. In case issue No. 2 is not proved whether the plaintiff is entitled to purchase the additional land as alleged? OPP 8. Relief." 8. Vide judgment dated 16,6.1990 the trial court decided issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff, issue Nos. 6 & 7 were decided against the plaintiff, issue No. 4 was decided against the defendant and issue No. 5 was decided in favour of defendant No. 2 and as a consequence the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for specific performance of contract in respect of 5 biswas of land out of the suit land and defendant No, 1 was directed to refund a sum of Rs. 1,800/- with interest @ 6% from the date of execution of agreement that is 12.2.1982 till the date of decision. The suit against defendant No. 2 however was dismissed. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the partial dismissal of the suit the plaintiff preferred an appeal which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, the present appeal. 10. This appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court has mis-read the oral evidence and documentary evidence? 2. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court has not read the oral as well as documentary evidence in its true perspective? 3. Whether a plea of bonafide purchaser is available to a person who admittedly purchased the land other than the suit land, but later on after being proved that the area described in the revenue record of the land in dispute is wants to establish himself to be a bona fide purchaser or that portion of land which admittedly he never purchased.” 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of this case, 12. Substantial Questions No. 1 & 2 : It was contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that to bring his case within clause (b) to Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the defendant No. 2 was to prove that he is a purchaser in good faith for value without notice of the agreement to sell the suit land to the plaintiff but neither it has been so pleaded nor proved on record and the Courts below have mis-appreciated the evidence on record, particularly the contents of agreement Ext, PA. Elaborating the contention, further it was urged that vide contents of Ext. PA, the plaintiff had been put in possession of the land agreed to be sold to the plaintiff, therefore, the defendant No. 2 should have made appropriate inquiries to find out as to how the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land which he failed to do. Thus, he is not a purchaser in good faith and the Courts below have gravely erred in not decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as a whole. 13. The relevant provisions of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 read as follows : "19. Thus, he is not a purchaser in good faith and the Courts below have gravely erred in not decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as a whole. 13. The relevant provisions of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 read as follows : "19. Relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title.—Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, specific performance of a contract may be enforced against— (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract; (c) xxx xxx xxx” 14. It is plain on a bare reading of the above provisions that the operation of this clause is confined to a case wherein the contract is enforceable against the parties to the contract and the liability of a person not party to the contract but claiming under a party to such contract, on the basis of a title subsequently acquired is that he takes the property subject to the transferors pre-existing contractual obligation. However, if the subsequent transferee for value pays money in good faith without notice of the original contract, any pre-existing contractual obligation of the transferor is not enforceable against him, 15. It was strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that onus to prove that defendant No. 2 is a transferee for value having paid the money in good faith and without notice of the agreement Ext. PA, is on defendant No. 2 which he has failed to discharge. The learned counsel has relied on a good number of case law to fortify his contention. However, I need not reproduce the same as the law regarding burden of proof of such plea is now firmly and undisputedly established. The settled law in this regard is that when a person claims to be a transferee for value paid in good faith without notice of the original contract, the burden to prove it lies on him, However, once the said initial burden is discharged by the subsequent transferee, the burden shifts to the original transferee to prove that it is not so. 16. It is pleaded case of defendant No. 2 vide paras 1, 2 and 6 of his written statement that defendant No. 2 had no knowledge of the agreement Ext. 16. It is pleaded case of defendant No. 2 vide paras 1, 2 and 6 of his written statement that defendant No. 2 had no knowledge of the agreement Ext. PA and is a bona fide purchaser for value paid to the transferee. In view of these averments in the written statement of defendant No. 2, it cannot be agreed to as contended for the plaintiff, that the defendant No. 2 has not pleaded that he is a purchaser for value paid in good faith without notice of the agreement Ext. PA. 17. Defendant No. 2 while appearing as DW-2 has specifically stated that before getting the sale deed executed, he had gone to the concerned Patwari and before purchasing four Biswas of land, had perused the revenue records. He got the land demarcated and obtained Tatima of the land intended to be purchased from Lekh Ram, Patwari who ha4 informed that two Bighas of land stood sold and 13 Biswas remained. He has further stated about payment of sale consideration of Rs. 8,000/- to the transferor/defendant No. 2 and that earlier this land was in possession of Rattan Singh (defendant No. 1) and since 1983 (the year of purchase) he has been in "possession thereof. In his cross-examination, it has not been suggested to him that he had knowledge of the pee-existing agreement between plaintiff and defendant No. 2 or that he has not paid the sale price or that this land was or is in possession of the plaintiff. His statement finds corroboration from the statement of defendant No. 1 (DW-1) who has stated that he had sold this land to defendant No. 2 for consideration and on receipt of the sale price and had put him in possession thereof. He has further admitted that at the time of sale of the land by him in favour of defendant No. 2, the said defendant was not aware of the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. It has not been specifically put to him in his cross-examination that at the time of sale in favour of defendant No. 2 he was not in possession of the land thus sold. A perusal of the sale deed (Ext. DA) and the documents (revenue papers) attached therewith do not disclose any contractual liability of defendant No. 1 qua the land sold to the defendant No. 2. A perusal of the sale deed (Ext. DA) and the documents (revenue papers) attached therewith do not disclose any contractual liability of defendant No. 1 qua the land sold to the defendant No. 2. In view of this evidence, the defendant No. 2 vhas discharged the initial burden of proving that he is a purchaser for value paid in good faith and without notice of the agreement Ext. PA. 18. In rebuttal, in fact, there is no evidence. It is though mentioned in the agreement Ext. PA that the plaintiff was put in possession of the land agreed to be sold to him but this averment is not supported by any of the P.Ws. Even PW-1 Mukhtare Aam of the plaintiff who has not appeared as witness, has no where stated that the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit land before or after or at the time of execution of the agreement Ext. PA. On the contrary, PW-1 has admitted that 9 Biswas of land (suit land) is in possession of Rattan Singh (defendant No. 1). Therefore, the mere recital in the agreement Ext. PA that possession of land thereby agreed to be sold was handed over to the plaintiff, is not reliable and capable of rebutting the evidence of defendant No. 2 as already discussed here-in-above. 19. In view of the above discussion and findings, both the Courts below have rightly concluded that defendant No. 2 was a bona fide purchaser for consideration without notice. These are findings of fact and cannot be interfered with unless it is shown that admissible and relevant evidence was rejected and inadmissible evidence has been accepted and the findings are based on mis-construction of a document creating the title. As already seen above, this is not a case of this nature, therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below do not call for any interference. 20. Substantial Question No. 3 : The learned counsel for the plaintiff has further contended that defendant No. 2, in any case, is the purchaser of unidentified and non-existent land inasmuch as he was sold four Biswas of land over and above nine Biswas already sold to the plaintiff whereas after sale of nine Biswas to the plaintiff, no land was left with defendant No. 1. 21. The contention raised deserves to be rejected. 21. The contention raised deserves to be rejected. Vide para 6 of the plaint, it is case of the plaintiff himself that defendant No. 1 sold four Biswas of land to defendant No. 2 out of the suit land. A perusal of sale deed Ext. DA and its annexures reveals that a specified portion of land comprising Khasra No. 305/208/134/2/ 5/1, measuring 4 Biswas had been sold to defendant No. 2 who is now in admitted possession thereof. It cannot be, therefore, held that the sale in favour of defendant No. 2 is of non-existent land. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree even on this count. 22. As a result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties, however, are left to bear their own costs of the appeal. Appeal dismissed.