JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Jain, J (Oral):- This is an appeal by defendant no.2 against the judgment and decree of both the courts below whereby the suit of plaintiff seeking possession by way of specific performance of the contract of sale has been decreed. 2. The case of plaintiff (Tarlok Singh) is that defendant no.1 (Harbhajan Singh) is the owner in possession of the property in dispute (4 kanals 19 marlas) i.e. 1/4th share of Khewat No.115, Khatauni No. 146, Khasra No. 841/1. (4-0), 841/2 (3-3), 816/1 (8-0), 6566/6262/804 (2-7), 6567/6262/804 (2-7) situated in the area of Village Bara Pind, Tehsil) Phillaur. 3. It is averred by the plaintiff that defendant no. 1 entered into an agreement of sale on 26.4.1998 of the land measuring 4 kanals 19 marlas for a consideration of Rs.2, 47,000/-. The plaintiff had paid Rs.10,000/­ towards earnest money at the time of the execution of the agreement with the condition that the balance sale consideration shall be paid at the time of execution of sale deed before the Sub Registrar. The sale deed was to be executed and registered within 3 months from the date of sanction of the mutation in favour of defendant No.1 regarding the inheritance of Swaran Singh, deceased father of defendant No.1 and in case of default by defendant no.1, the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the possession of the land in question through the court by filing a suit for specific performance. Defendant No.1 obtained the jamabandi on 18.5.1998 and handed over to the plaintiff on the basis of which mutation No.7035 was sanctioned “regarding the land in dispute in favour of defendant no.1. After the receipt of the copy of the jamabandi the plaintiff asked him (defendant no.1) to execute the sale deed and had also issued registered AD letter/notice dated 18.05.1998 to him through his Advocate Sh. S.K. Goel and asked him to execute the sale deed on or before 18.8.1998. Since defendant no.1 did not give any reply, the plaintiff had to file a suit for injunction against him on 18.5.1998 itself as he came to know that defendant no.1 is alienating the suit land to some other person in order to wriggle out of the agreement. ‘ In the said suit, stay was granted. The plaintiff had also approached defendant no. ‘ In the said suit, stay was granted. The plaintiff had also approached defendant no. 1 a week prior to 18.8.1998 alongwith marginal witnesses of the agreement and balance amount in cash but he refused to accept the same on the ground that he will receive the same on the date of execution and registration of the sale deed. The plaintiff appeared before the Sub Registrar on 18.8.1998 for execution of the sale deed as he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Defendant no.1 allegedly sold the land in dispute to defendant no.2 (appellant) vide sale deed dated 26.5.1998. It is alleged in the plaint that the sale deed has no effect on the rights of the plaintiff. 4. After notice, separate written statements were filed by defendants no.1. and 2. Defendant no.1 raised a preliminary objection in his written statement that plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit, suit is not­ maintainable in the present form and is barred under order 2 rule 2 CPC, the plaintiff is stopped by his own act and conduct, suit is not properly valued. On merits, defendant no. 1 admitted that he had sold the land in suit measuring 4 kanals 19 marlas vide sale deed dated 26.5.1998 to defendant no.2 for a consideration of Rs.1, 85,000/-. It was alleged that he never agreed to sell the land in dispute to the plaintiff nor entered into any agreement dated 26.4.1998 and has thus not received Rs.10,000/- as earnest money. It was also alleged by defendant no.1 that even if it is proved that there is an agreement dated 26.4.1998 it does not bear his thumb impression and is thus a result of fraud and mis-representation. It was denied that mutation was ever sanctioned on 18.5.1998 or defendant no.1 ever obtained the fard jamabandi on 18.5.1998. It was denied that plaintiff ever approached defendant no.1 a week prior to 18.8.1998 with marginal witnesses or tendered any balance because the plaintiff was having full knowledge that defendant no.1 had already sold land in dispute to defendant no.2 on 26.5.1998. In the written statement filed by the defendant no.2, it was pleaded that the property has been purchased by him after due care and good faith and verification of the revenue record by registered sale deed dated 26.5.1998 for a consideration of Rs.1,85,000/-. In the written statement filed by the defendant no.2, it was pleaded that the property has been purchased by him after due care and good faith and verification of the revenue record by registered sale deed dated 26.5.1998 for a consideration of Rs.1,85,000/-. Thus, defendant no.2 claimed himself to be bonafide purchaser. All other pleadings of the plaintiff were denied. 5. The plaintiff filed replication denying the claim made in the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the plaint. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues from the pleadings of the parties: 1. Whether the defendant entered into contract with the plaintiff of sale dated 26.4.1998 regarding the suit property? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property?OPP. 2A. Whether the alleged sale deed dated 26.5 .1998 is illegal, null and void and so its effect? OPP. 3. Whether in alternative the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued? OPD. 7. Relief. 6. After taking into consideration both oral as well as the documentary evidence the learned Trial Court decreed the suit and declared that the sale deed dated 26.5.1998 executed by defendant in favour of defendant no.2 is illegal. Only defendant no.2 went up in first appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court but remained unsuccessful as he failed to prove that he is a bonafide purchaser. 7. Sh. R.S. Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the defendant no.2/appellant has raised the same plea, which has been raised before the courts below in respect of being a bonafide purchaser, whereas, Sh. Malkeet Singh, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff has submitted that appellant cannot be considered to be a bonafide purchaser as he is the real nephew of defendant no.1, who had entered into agreement to sell his property for a sum of Rs.2, 47,000/- to the plaintiff and in order to wriggle out of that agreement sold the same property for a sum of Rs.1, 85,000/- during the subsistence of the stay order passed by the Civil Court. It is also contended by learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs that in view of stay order operating against the alienation of the suit property, the defendant. It is also contended by learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs that in view of stay order operating against the alienation of the suit property, the defendant. no.2/appellant cannot be considered to be bonafide purchaser. 8. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 9. The vendor/defendant no.1 did not challenge the judgement decree of the learned Trial Court, wherein it has been recorded that the defendant no.1 had in fact entered into an agreement to sell the land in dispute with the plaintiff and the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The only question raised before the learned courts below by the defendant no.2 is of a bonafide purchaser of the property in dispute. It has come on the record that plaintiff had filed a suit against defendant no.1 for injunction against alienation as per the copy of the order Ex. PW8/B. The suit was filed on 19.5.1998 and on the same date injunction against alienation was granted. Documents Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW6/B are the certified copies of the plaint and written statement available on the record. It is apparent that when the sale deed was executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 on 26.5.1998 the injunction order was operative. Moreover, why should defendant No.1 would sell the land in question to defendant No.2 for a consideration of Rs.1,85,000/- for which he was getting Rs.2,47,000/- from the plaintiff. It is obvious, that it was a sham transaction by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in order to wriggle out of the agreement to sell entered into with the plaintiff. Moreover, defendant No.2 is the nephew of defendant No.1 and no transfer of sale consideration in the Sale Deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 has been proved. Besides, the sale deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was executed in spite of stay order. All ­ these factors cumulatively proves that defendant/appellant is not a bonafide purchaser. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal nor any substantial question of law is involved, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. --------------------