JUDGMENT Hon’ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 4.12.2006 passed by the lower appellate Court whereby it has reversed the judgment of the trial Court and has decreed the respondents’ suit for specific performance of contract. 3. The aforesaid relief of specific performance of contract was on the basis of registered agreement dated 7.5.1997 allegedly executed by the respondent defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 did not come to contest the suit and the subsequent purchaser, the defendant No. 2 did appear and filed his written statement stating that no agreement with regard to the disputed property was ever executed by his vendor, the defendant No. 1 and if there is any such document relied upon by the plaintiff, it is just a forged document. It is further pleaded that the defendant No. 2-appellant had no knowledge of such agreement and he is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of the earlier contract between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. 4. The trial Court on the pleadings of the parties formulated several issues and recorded its findings. It held that the advance money accepted by the defendant in pursuance to the earlier agreement was subsequently refunded by him to the plaintiff and that the defendant No. 2 did not have any information of such earlier agreement and he happen to be a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of the earlier contract. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Against this judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the first appellate Court recorded otherwise findings holding that the plaintiff defendant No. 2 did have the knowledge of the earlier contract of sale and that he was not entitled to take a plea of the ignorance of such contract. The Court below has further found that since the defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit, it was obvious that the agreement in question was a valid agreement and it has to be specifically performed by the parties. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court was set aside and the appeal was allowed by decreeing the suit. 5. The Court below has further found that since the defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit, it was obvious that the agreement in question was a valid agreement and it has to be specifically performed by the parties. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court was set aside and the appeal was allowed by decreeing the suit. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the advance money taken in pursuance to the execution of the alleged agreement by the defendant No. 1, had been refunded to the plaintiff after some time of the agreement and this fact has been fully established from the evidence as held by the trial Court. The appellate Court has not devoted itself to this point while reversing the judgment of the trial Court. Learned Counsel thus, submits that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is illegal, erroneous and perverse. 6. I do not agree with the submission of the learned Counsel more specially in view of the fact that it is nowhere the case of the defendant No. 2, the appellant that a sum of advance money amounting to Rs. 40,000/-, which is said to have been given to the defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff towards the proposed sale, was ever refunded to the plaintiff. It is strange that in spite of no such case being there in the pleadings of the defendant No. 2, yet he chose to file a receipt as a piece of evidence stressing upon this case to be established before the Court that the advance money had been refunded to the plaintiff by the defendant No. 1 and the agreement in question thereafter did not have any legal value. It is also strange that the trial Court has accepted such piece of evidence and has dealt with elaborately in its judgment. If the defendant No. 2 does not have a case of such nature, no piece of evidence for proving such case is to be accepted by a Court. Much less there was no occasion for the Court to deal with such aspect of the matter in detail in its judgment. If the defendant No. 2 does not have a case of such nature, no piece of evidence for proving such case is to be accepted by a Court. Much less there was no occasion for the Court to deal with such aspect of the matter in detail in its judgment. The very filing of the receipt by the defendant No. 2 makes it more than obvious that he did have full knowledge of the earlier contract of sale and his plea regarding ignorance of such contract taken in the written statement has been rendered to be wholly fallacious and meaningless. This case of the appellant, the defendant No. 2 that he is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of the earlier agreement has altogether been kept aside and stands excluded by this piece of evidence. Therefore, if the lower appellate Court has held that the defendant No. 2 was not a bonafide purchaser of the property having no notice of the earlier agreement, this factual finding recorded by it is wholly correct and no interference in this regard is possible in this second appeal. The findings recorded by the Court below are wholly based upon the documents and other evidence available on record, which are all factual and no substantial question of law is there for formulation to admit the appeal. 7. The appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. ————