JUDGMENT S.N SATYANARAYANA, J.—This is plaintiff’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.9.2003 passed in R.A. No. 75/1991 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Kolar, wherein the judgment and decree dated 22.7.1991 passed in O.S. No. 239/1990 on the file of Principal Munsiff, Kolar, was reversed, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff. The parties to this appeal are referred to by their rank in the trial Court. 2. The facts leading to this appeal are that, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against defendants 1 and 2 seeking to enforce agreement of sale dated 27.3.1989 in respect of land measuring to an extent of 1 acre 16 guntas in Sy. No. 51/2B and C situated at Kallahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk. Plaintiff’s case is that the defendants 1 and 2 are mother and son respectively. They entered into an agreement with plaintiff for sale of the suit schedule property on 27.3.1989 for valuable consideration of Rs. 6,000/-. On the date of agreement, defendants 1 and 2 received full sale consideration, delivered vacant possession of suit schedule property to plaintiff in part performance of the agreement of sale. The plaintiff is in possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the same from the date of agreement till date of suit. It is his case that as on 27.3.1989 there was bar preventing sale of suit schedule property under Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966. Therefore, the defendants had agreed to execute the sale deed of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff immediately after the said Act is repealed. Subsequently through others he came to know that there is no bar for registration of sale deed in respect of suit schedule property under the Fragmentation Act. Hence he approached defendants 1 and 2 to execute and register the sale deed of suit schedule property in his favour. Defendants 1 and 2 agreed to do so and promised to come to the Sub-Registrar’s office at Kolar. But, they did not come on the day they assured to be present before the Sub-Registrar. After several such attempts, he got a panchayath held to get defendants 1 and 2 advised, which ended in vain. Defendants 1 and 2 agreed to do so and promised to come to the Sub-Registrar’s office at Kolar. But, they did not come on the day they assured to be present before the Sub-Registrar. After several such attempts, he got a panchayath held to get defendants 1 and 2 advised, which ended in vain. Thereafter, he got a legal notice issued on 24.3.1990 calling upon them to come to Sub-Registrar’s office at Kolar and to execute the registered sale deed conveying the suit schedule property in his favour. Though the said notice was duly served on defendants 1 and 2, they did not respond to the same and deliberately kept quite. Hence he filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale deed dated 27.3.1989. 3. It is also his case that prior to filing of suit he came to know that defendants 1 and 2 have sold and conveyed suit schedule property in favour of 3rd defendant for nominal consideration to defeat the legitimate claim of plaintiff in securing absolute sale deed of suit schedule property. Pursuant to said sale deed defendants 1 to 3 are attempting to cause obstruction to plaintiffs peaceful possession, cultivation and enjoyment of suit schedule property. Hence he arrayed 3rd defendant to the said suit and sought for a decree collectively against defendants 1 to 3 directing them to specifically enforce the agreement of sale dated 27.3.1989 executed by defendants 1 and 2 in his favour. 4. In the said proceeding, though notice was duly served on all the defendants, 1st and 2nd defendants remained ex parte. It is only 3rd defendant who contested the suit denying suit averment regarding defendants 1 and 2 executing agreement of sale of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff on 27.3.1989, receiving a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as consideration for sale of suit, schedule property, receipt of entire sale consideration of Rs. 6,000/- with an assurance to execute the absolute sale deed as soon as bar for registration of absolute sale deed under the Fragmentation Act is lifted, in part performance of said agreement defendants 1 and 2 put plaintiff in physical possession of suit schedule property on 27.3.1989 itself and possession of suit schedule property is in the hands of plaintiff pursuant to the alleged agreement of sale. He also denied all other averments made by plaintiff in his plaint. 5. He also denied all other averments made by plaintiff in his plaint. 5. In addition, 3rd defendant has pleaded that defendants 1 and 2 have sold suit schedule property to him on 25.5.1989 for a sum of Rs. 56,000/-, obtained advance sum of Rs. 6,000/- on that day and executed an agreement of sale agreeing to execute regular sale deed within three months from that day by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- at the time of registration of the sale deed. It is his case that defendants 1 and 2 did not perform their part of contract within the stipulated time. Hence he issued a legal notice to defendants 1 and 2 calling upon them to complete sale transaction pursuant to agreement dated 25.5.1989, for which untenable reply was sent by 1st defendant. Thereafter, he filed a suit in O.S. No. 105/1989 on 1.8.1989 on the file of City Civil Court, Kolar. The said suit was posted to 19.4.1990. Before the hearing date on 19.4.1990 the defendants 1 and 2 approached him, made persistent and persuasive attempts for payment of balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- in return of which they would be willing and ready to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement of sale dated 25.5.1989, for the reason, that they had to perform marriage of the daughter of 1st defendant and sister of 2nd defendant on 22.3.1990. In this behalf, the 1st defendant who was busy in preparation of marriage executed a registered power of attorney on 13.3.1990 enabling her son 2nd defendant to execute the sale deed of suit land to 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant got the sale deed prepared, executed and registered on 16.3.1990 by paying balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. It is his case that balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by him before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed executed in his favour and to that effect there is a recital in the said sale deed. It is the case of 3rd defendant that at the time of execution and registration of sale deed of suit schedule property in his favour, defendants 1 and 2 put him in possession of suit schedule property. He has been in exclusive possession of the same from that date till date of filing of written statement. 6. It is the case of 3rd defendant that at the time of execution and registration of sale deed of suit schedule property in his favour, defendants 1 and 2 put him in possession of suit schedule property. He has been in exclusive possession of the same from that date till date of filing of written statement. 6. It is further contended by 3rd defendant that plaintiff was quite aware of the fact that this defendant has entered into agreement with defendants 1 and 2 for purchase of suit schedule property on 25.5.1989. Plaintiff was also aware of the fact that a suit was filed by 3rd defendant against defendants 1 and 2 seeking specific performance of said agreement dated 25.5.1989. He further states that plaintiff was also aware that said suit was settled and sale deed of the suit schedule property was registered in his name. All these facts were known not only to plaintiff but to the entire village. According to him, the agreement on which plaintiff is seeking specific performance is a concocted document, which is forged and fabricated with the sole intention of depriving 3rd defendant of his property. It is also his case that the difference between the sale consideration asserted by rival parties expose the falsity and also fraudulent transaction relied upon by plaintiff. 7. With these rival contentions the trial Court proceeded to frame the following issues: “(1) Whether plaintiff proves that defendants 1 and 2 executed agreement dated 27.3.1989 to sell suit property in his favour for Rs. 6000/- and received full consideration and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit land? (2) Whether plaintiff was in possession of suit land on the date of suit? (3) Whether defendants 1 and 2 have failed to perform their part of contract? (4) Whether defendant No. 3 has purchased the suit property from defendants 1 and 2 and he is in possession of suit property? (5) Whether defendant No. 3 is also liable to execute sale deed alongwith defendants 1 and 2? (6) What order?” Additional Issue (1) Whether the 3rd defendant proves that the defendant No. 1 and 2 have executed an agreement of sale date 25.5.1989 and received Rs. 6,000/- towards sale consideration. In the said proceedings, plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1, in addition, he got two witnesses examined as P.Ws. (6) What order?” Additional Issue (1) Whether the 3rd defendant proves that the defendant No. 1 and 2 have executed an agreement of sale date 25.5.1989 and received Rs. 6,000/- towards sale consideration. In the said proceedings, plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1, in addition, he got two witnesses examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3 in support of his case and marked documents Exs. P1 to P7. Third defendant examined himself as D.W. 2 and in addition got other seven witnesses examined as D.Ws. 1 and 3 to 8 and got marked documents Exs. D1 to 8 in support of his case. 8. The trial Court, on appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record, proceeded to decree the suit holding issue Nos. 1 to 3 in the affirmative, 4th issue partly in affirmative and partly in negative, 5th and 6th issues in affirmative and additional issue in negative. In the result, trial Court answered all the issues in favour of plaintiff, in the affirmative and one, which was framed in favour of 3rd defendant in negative. Accordingly the suit was decreed with a direction to defendants 1 to 3 to execute the sale deed of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff. Third defendant in whose favour a registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property is already in existence challenged the said judgment and decree by filing a regular appeal in R.A. No. 75/1991 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Kolar on 5.9.1991. 9. In the said appeal, plaintiff was 1st respondent and defendants 1 and 2 were respondents 2 and 3. First respondent who was plaintiff in original suit entered appearance through Counsel. Defendants 1 and 2 who are respondents 2 and 3 in the regular appeal again remained absent in the first appeal. 10. In the first appeal, appellant 3rd defendant made an application seeking to amend written statement filed by him and for production of additional evidence which was allowed by 1st appellate Court and set aside the judgment and decree passed by trial Court and remanded the matter to trial Court for fresh disposal. 10. In the first appeal, appellant 3rd defendant made an application seeking to amend written statement filed by him and for production of additional evidence which was allowed by 1st appellate Court and set aside the judgment and decree passed by trial Court and remanded the matter to trial Court for fresh disposal. The said judgment of 1st appellate Court was challenged by plaintiff in M.S.A. No. 5/1993 on the file of this Court, which was allowed by order dated 19.1.1993 with the following observation: “The appellate Court is hereby directed to frame issues arising out of allowing the interlocutory application seeking amendment and production of additional evidence and remand the matter to the trial Court with a direction to give opportunity to both the parties on record to lead evidence on particular issue or issues and thereafter to send its report to the appellate Court. After receipt of the report the appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal on merits on all issues arising out of the subject matter of the suit. As such, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court is set aside.” 11. Thereafter, 1st appellate Court took-up regular appeal, framed additional issue and disposed of it directing trial Court to record evidence on the said issues and to resubmit records to the same Court. Again, this order was also challenged by plaintiff in C.R.P. No. 426/1994 on the file of this Court. This Court by its order dated 12.1.2001 dismissed said CRP holding that framing of additional issue and directing trial Court to record evidence is in tune with the order passed by this Court in M.S.A. 5/1993. In the light of these orders, trial Court recorded evidence of 3rd defendant, appellant before the 1st appellate Court on additional issues relating to the status of bona fide purchaser for value without notice of prior transaction. It is seen that at the stage of recording additional evidence the plaintiff who was 1st respondent before the 1st appellate Court did not choose to lead any evidence. The trial Court after recording evidence resubmitted entire records to 1st appellate Court, which framed the following points for consideration: “(1) Whether the appellant/defendant No. 3 has established that Ex. P1 is a concocted document to defeat his rights under Ex. D5 and 6? (2) Whether respondent No. 1/plaintiff has proved due execution of Ex. The trial Court after recording evidence resubmitted entire records to 1st appellate Court, which framed the following points for consideration: “(1) Whether the appellant/defendant No. 3 has established that Ex. P1 is a concocted document to defeat his rights under Ex. D5 and 6? (2) Whether respondent No. 1/plaintiff has proved due execution of Ex. P1 which prior to the execution of the Ex. D5 agreement in favour of defendant No. 3/appellant? (3) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is perverse, illegal and not based upon the evidence on record and needs to be interfered by this Court? (4) What order?” 12. Thereafter, 1st appellate Court proceeded to answer point Nos. 1 and 3 in affirmative and point No. 2 in negative. In effect, 1st appellate Court accepted that 3rd defendant has established Ex. P1 as a concocted document to defeat his rights under Exs. D5 and D6 and held that judgment and decree of trial Court is perverse, illegal and not based on evidence on record and requires interference. While doing so, it held that 1st respondent who was plaintiff in trial Court failed to prove execution of Ex. P1 prior to execution of Exs. D5 and D6 agreement and sale deed executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of 3rd defendant. With this, claim of plaintiff was defeated and contentions urged by 3rd defendant were upheld. Plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by 1st appellate Court: in reversing the finding of trial Court has come up in this appeal. 13. In this proceeding, notice was duly served on all respondents, however, only 3rd respondent entered appearance, i.e., 3rd defendant in trial Court. As in the earlier two proceedings, respondents 1 and 2, i.e., defendants 1 and 2 in trial Court remained absent in this proceeding also. This Court after hearing Counsel for appellant admitted the appeal framing the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the first appellate Court was right in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court in not accepting Ex. P1, when the first defendant, who is another co-owner of the property, had admitted the same in the written statement filed by her in O.S. 105/89 and further the first appellate Court was right in throwing the burden upon the plaintiff when the defendant had taken up plea that the said document is ante-dated and fabricated? P1, when the first defendant, who is another co-owner of the property, had admitted the same in the written statement filed by her in O.S. 105/89 and further the first appellate Court was right in throwing the burden upon the plaintiff when the defendant had taken up plea that the said document is ante-dated and fabricated? (2) Whether the first appellate Court was right in not accepting the written statement Ex. P6 filed by the first defendant in O.S. No. 105/89 on the file of the learned Addl. Munsiff, Kolar, which suit was filed by the 3rd defendant for specific performance against defendants 1 and 2 and whether the findings and the reasons recorded by the first appellate Court on the contentious points holding that Ex. P1 is not proved by drawing adverse inference and non-summoning of document registration register and mark it through P.W. 3 is in conformity with Sections 57, 58, 67, 74, 75 and 80 of the Evidence Act?” 14. After looking in to the pleadings, the documents relied upon by both parties in Courts below and evidence and judgment of 1st appellate Court, this Court answer substantial questions of law in affirmative for the following: Reasons: Heard the counsel for appellant and respondents regarding substantial questions of law framed by this Court at the time of admission of this appeal, perused the findings given by the Courts below in their judgments. Before answering the aforesaid substantial questions of law this Court would like to analyse two sets of facts and events with reference to their dates, as contended by plaintiff and 3rd defendant in the Courts below. 15. As could be seen from records 3rd defendant entered into agreement with defendants 1 and 2 on 25.5.1989 for purchase of suit schedule property. The sale consideration is Rs. 56,000/-. At the time of entering into agreement Ex. D5, a sum of Rs. 6,000/- is paid as advance and balance Rs. 50,000/- is agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of sale deed in favour of 3rd defendant. In the said agreement, time is also fixed for registration of sale deed, i.e., the said sale deed should be executed and completed within three months from 25.5.1989. 6,000/- is paid as advance and balance Rs. 50,000/- is agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of sale deed in favour of 3rd defendant. In the said agreement, time is also fixed for registration of sale deed, i.e., the said sale deed should be executed and completed within three months from 25.5.1989. Thereafter, it is seen that 3rd defendant has issued a legal notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 13.7.1989 calling upon them to receive balance sale consideration and execute sale deed, which is at Ex. D8. To the said notice a reply is sent by 1st defendant on 19.7.1989. In the said reply she denies entering into agreement of sale with 3rd defendant, wherein she categorically states that she has not entered into any agreement with anybody for sale of said property. The said reply is at Ex. D7. In the said reply, she denied her liability to execute sale deed in favour of 3rd defendant. Thereafter, it is seen that a suit for specific performance is filed by 3rd defendant on 1.8.1989 numbered as O.S. No. 105/1989. During the pendency of said suit before anybody could file written statement it is seen that defendants 1 and 2 have agreed to settle the dispute between themselves and 3rd defendant. In this behalf 1st defendant executed and registered a Power of Attorney in favour of her son authorising him to convey suit schedule property in favour of 3rd defendant on behalf of himself and also on her behalf. Thereafter, on 15.3.1990 the sale deed is executed. To the said sale deed 1st defendant also affixed her signature. Thereafter, on 16.3.1990 the said sale deed is registered in the office of Sub-Registrar. In the meanwhile, said O.S. No. 105/1989, which was pending before the Court below was posted to 19.4.1989. Now leaving the transaction of 3rd defendant at this stage, let us analyse the dates and events pertaining to the transaction of plaintiff. 16. Plaintiff’s case is that he entered into an agreement with defendants 1 and 2 on 27.3.1989 for purchase of suit schedule property for valuable consideration of Rs..6,000/-. On the same day, he paid entire sale consideration. According to him, Fragmentation Act, which was in force as on that date did not permit registration of suit schedule property in his name. Hence, execution and registration of sale deed was deferred. On the same day, he paid entire sale consideration. According to him, Fragmentation Act, which was in force as on that date did not permit registration of suit schedule property in his name. Hence, execution and registration of sale deed was deferred. Instead, parties entered into an agreement wherein vendors, defendants 1 and 2 received entire sale consideration, delivered vacant possession of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff. It is seen that thereafter, nothing has been done by plaintiff until 22.3.1990. On that day a notice is issued by him to defendants 1 and 2 calling upon them to execute sale deed of suit schedule property in his favour. In the said notice which is at Ex. P2 there is no reference to the sale deed dated 15.3.1990 executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of 3rd defendant. Incidentally, said notice is not replied and there is acknowledgement to show that it is served on 2nd defendant Narayanaswamy on 4.4.1990. Interestingly, everything starts happening on the same day, i.e., when plaintiff issued notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 22.3.1990. 1st defendant who is performing marriage of her daughter on 23.3.1990 takes time to seek advancement of O.S. No. 105/1989 from 19.4.1990 to 23.3.1990. On the same day, she files written statement in the said suit stating that she has already entered into agreement with plaintiff on 27.3.1989 for sale of suit schedule property for valuable consideration of Rs. 6,000/- and she has put him in possession of suit property alongwith her son. On the same day, she also lodges a complaint before Tahsildar, wherein she reiterates the so called agreement of sale entered into between herself and plaintiff and prays that her name should be removed from revenue register in respect of suit schedule property as kathedar and to register the same in favour of plaintiff as he has been put in possession of suit schedule property way back on 27.3.1989. Incidentally, on 24.3.1990 she prepares a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. to be filed before Principal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolar, against her son, 2nd defendant, 3rd defendant and persons who are witnesses and scribe to agreement and sale deed executed in favour of 3rd defendant alleging that they have colluded together and created false and fictitious document in favour of 3rd defendant. Though said document is prepared on 24.3.1990 itself, she changes its date as 30.3.1990 and subsequently changes it to 2.4.1990 and files that private complaint. The result of said private complaint is not placed on the records of this Court and this Court is not aware about that. In the meanwhile 3rd defendant who has filed O.S. No. 105/1989 withdraws the same on the ground that in the light of suit schedule property being registered in his favour under sale deed dated 15.3.1990 suit does not survive. 17. In the background of these two sets of events as represented by plaintiff and 3rd defendant, the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal will have to be analysed. In O.S. No. 239/1990 filed by plaintiff on 4.4.1990 trial Court after recording evidence of the parties has proceeded to accept the averments made by plaintiff regarding dates and events in which the transaction between plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 said to have taken place ignoring the events which have taken in chronological order with reference to dates and events so far as it pertains to 3rd defendant and has come to a conclusion that agreement of sale entered into between plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 vide Ex. P1 has come into place on 27.3.1989, during the subsistence of Ex. P1 transaction between defendants 1, 2 and 3 has come into place culminating in execution of sale deed of suit schedule property in favour of 3rd defendant. Therefore, the sale deed which is executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of 3rd defendant is not valid and binding, plaintiff having entered into agreement vide Ex. P1 and having taken possession of suit schedule property under Ex. P1 is entitled to get sale deed of suit schedule property executed in his favour not only by defendants 1 and 2 and also by 3rd defendant. 18. Whereas 1st appellate Court has analysed the same in a difference perspective by framing points for consideration as referred to above, answered them in favour of 3rd defendant, which is challenged in this appeal and in respect of which aforesaid substantial questions of law are framed. 19. Coming to 1st substantial question of law, it revolves around rejecting Ex. 18. Whereas 1st appellate Court has analysed the same in a difference perspective by framing points for consideration as referred to above, answered them in favour of 3rd defendant, which is challenged in this appeal and in respect of which aforesaid substantial questions of law are framed. 19. Coming to 1st substantial question of law, it revolves around rejecting Ex. P1, agreement of sale dated 27.3.1989 as not been proved and established by plaintiff beyond all reasonable doubt that it has come into existence on 27.3.1989 and also finding of Courts below that burden of establishing said document is on plaintiff, is held to be correct for the following reasons. 20. As could be seen from dates and events of incidents referred to above, Ex. P1 is alleged to have come into existence on 27.3.1989. Plaintiff has not established before this Court what was the value of suit schedule property as on that date. It is said that he entered into an agreement for purchase of 1 acre 16 guntas of land for valuable consideration of Rs. 6,000/-. In the said agreement a clause is included to say that though entire sale consideration was paid at the time of entering into agreement sale deed could not be executed, for the reason that Fragmentation Act that is in force came in the way of conveying suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff. In support of execution of this agreement plaintiff has examined 3 witnesses. Among them P.W. 3 is scribe. P.W. 3 Siddaiah Shetty in his evidence categorically states that he never mentioned at the time of entering into agreement that Fragmentation Act would come in the way of registration of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff. It is further seen that plaintiff while issuing notice on 22.3.1990 has stated for the first time that 15 days prior to issue of said notice he has come to know that Fragmentation Act would not come in the way of execution of sale deed in his favour. However, he has not placed anything on record to show that in the first instance said Act was in force restricting execution and registration of sale deed of suit schedule property in his favour on 27.3.1989 and said Fragmentation Act was subsequently repealed. The entire averment of plaintiff appears to be self-serving and it is with an intention to make believe that Ex. The entire averment of plaintiff appears to be self-serving and it is with an intention to make believe that Ex. P1 is genuine. It is also to be noted that P.W. 3, scribe who is also a Stamp Vendor has stated in his evidence that he maintained a register, wherein issue of stamp papers in favour of purchasers will be recorded. Incidentally, in this case 3rd defendant at the time of filing of his written statement had taken a specific plea that Ex. P1 is a concocted document, which has come into place subsequent to the sale deed in his favour. With such kind of serious allegations regarding genuineness of document, it is expected of plaintiff not only to produce said document, it is incumbent upon him to establish that the stamp paper on which said document is created was purchased on the date mentioned therein, i.e., on 27.3.1989. Though the scribe P.W. 3 states that he maintained register, steps are not taken to produce said register in the Court to demonstrate that Ex. P1 has actually come into existence on 27.3.1989 itself with reference to sale of stamp paper on which said agreement was written. Inspite of there being a specific denial by 3rd defendant regarding existence of Ex. P1 on 27.3.1989 and there being a specific allegation that it is a concocted document plaintiff does not take any steps to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt by summoning stamp paper register in which reference to sale of stamp paper on which Ex. P1, the agreement of sale dated 27.3.1989 is written. In the absence of same 1st appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that Ex. P1 is a concocted document. The conclusion arrived at by 1st appellate Court is also based on the above surmises and conjectures appears to be just and proper and does not call for interference by this Court in this second appeal. Therefore, 1st substantial question of law is answered in affirmative. 21. Now coming to second substantial question of law, which is regarding execution of sale deed at Ex. D6 which is said to have come into place after 3rd defendant had clear notice of Ex. P1, again we have to refer to the events which are referred to in earlier paragraphs in chronological order with reference to the dates. 21. Now coming to second substantial question of law, which is regarding execution of sale deed at Ex. D6 which is said to have come into place after 3rd defendant had clear notice of Ex. P1, again we have to refer to the events which are referred to in earlier paragraphs in chronological order with reference to the dates. As could be seen from records 3rd defendant had filed suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 105/1989 on 1.8.1989. In the said suit, summons was duly served on defendants 1 and 2. In the said suit even before filing of written statement defendants 1 and 2 came forward to settle the dispute with 3rd defendant, who is plaintiff in the said suit. Wherein 1st defendant agreed to execute a registered power of attorney in favour of her son 2nd defendant to enable 3rd defendant; to get sale deed of suit schedule property in his favour from 2nd defendant, which he would be executing not only on his behalf but also on behalf of his mother, 1st defendant. It is seen that with the help of said registered power of attorney 2nd defendant executed sale deed in favour of 3rd defendant on 15.3.1990. It is also seen that on 15.3.1990 though 1st defendant has executed power of attorney in favour of her son to execute the registered sale deed, she has also executed sale deed by affixing her thumb impression. However, on 16.3.1990 the said sale deed is presented by her son and the same was registered on the strength of registered power of attorney that was executed by 1st defendant and suit schedule property got conveyed in favour of 3rd defendant on 16.3.1990. As on 16.3.1990 suit in O.S. No. 105/1989 was posted to 19.4.1990 for filing of written statement by defendants 1 and 2, it is seen that subsequent to execution and registration of sale deed in favour of 3rd defendant 1st defendant got suit advanced from 19.4.1990 to 23.3.1990 and filed her written statement on that date. It is for the first time that she has taken a contention that she has already sold suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff on 27.3.1989. This submission of 1st defendant will have to be analysed with reference to Ex. It is for the first time that she has taken a contention that she has already sold suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff on 27.3.1989. This submission of 1st defendant will have to be analysed with reference to Ex. D7 which is a reply sent by her to 3rd defendant to a notice issued by 3rd defendant calling upon her to execute sale deed of suit schedule property in his favour pursuant to Ex. D5 which was executed by her and her son on 25.5.1989. In the said reply on 19.7.1989, she had taken a specific contention that she is absolute owner of suit schedule property and she has not entered into agreement of sale with anybody, much less 3rd defendant, who had called upon her to execute sale deed. If said reply is read with reference to written statement filed by her on 23.3.1990 it is obvious that 1st defendant is a pathological lier. As she was making a false statement in her reply date 19.7.1989 wherein she denied entering into agreement with 3rd defendant for sale of suit schedule property and categorically stated that she never sold suit schedule property in favour of anybody. For the first time on 23.3.1990 which is subsequent to execution of sale deed in favour of 3rd defendant she has taken a plea that she has entered into agreement with plaintiff for sale of suit schedule property. She has repeated the same in her complaint dated 23.3.1990 filed before Tahsildar. She has also repeated the same in her private complaint which was initially drafted on 24.3.1990, subsequently filed into Court on 2.4.1990. By looking into all these things, it is clearly seen that 3rd defendant when he purchased suit schedule property right from 25.5.1989 to 15.3.1990, i.e., the date when suit schedule property was executed in his favour vide Ex. D6 he was not aware of alleged sale transaction between plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. It was not brought to his notice by anybody, i.e., either plaintiff or defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, as on 15.3.1990 3rd defendant was a bona fide purchaser of suit schedule property for valuable consideration from defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, sale deed vide Ex. It was not brought to his notice by anybody, i.e., either plaintiff or defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, as on 15.3.1990 3rd defendant was a bona fide purchaser of suit schedule property for valuable consideration from defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, sale deed vide Ex. D6 dated 15.3.1990 is not a document which was executed in his favour when there was notice to him with reference to alleged agreement of sale dated 27.3.1989 said to have been executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, this Court answer both substantial questions of law in favour of 3rd defendant and while doing so further observe that there is clear attempt on the part of defendants 1 and 2 with connivance of plaintiff in creating Ex. P1 with an intention to deny legitimate transaction which was entered into between 3rd defendant and defendants 1 and 2 on 25.5.1989 vide Ex. D5 which culminated in sale-deed dated 15.3.1990 vide Ex. D6 and which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar on 16.3.1990 and pursuant to which 3rd defendant is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. 22. In the result, the judgment and decree dated 17.9.2003 in R.A. No. 75/1991 reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.7.1991 in O.S. No. 239/1990 is confirmed, consequently the second appeal filed by plaintiff is rejected with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,000/- payable to 3rd defendant.