JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - By this common judgment, I am disposing of two appeals i.e. RSA No. 438 of 2010, titled Sachin Kumar and others versus Ram Mehar and others and RSA No. 3445 of 2009 titled O m Parkash and others versus Ram Mehar and others because both these appeals have arisen out of single suit. 2. Respondent no. 1 – plaintiff Ram Mehar filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 11.7.1999. Plaintiff alleged that Bhoop Singh defendant no. 1 (since deceased and represented by his daughter Birmati as his legal representative) was owner in possession of suit land measuring 40 kanals 14 marlas i.e. 15 kanals 2 marlas land being 1/4th share of 60 kanals 9 marlas land and 25 kanals 12 marlas land being 5/12 share of 61 kanals 9 marlas land. Defendant agreed to sell the suit land to plaintiff @ Rs. 1,40,000/- per acre and received Rs 1,50,000/- as earnest money and executed agreement dated 11.7.1999. Sale deed was to be executed upto 31.10.1999. However, prior to it, defendant no. 1 sold 15 kanals 2 marlas land (1/4th share of 60 kanals 9 marlas) out of the suit land to defendants no. 2 to 4 vide two sale deeds dated 28.9.1999 and 1/7.10.1999 and also executed two lease deeds thereof dated 27.9.1999 and 28.9.1999 in favour of defendant no. 5 in order to frustrate the agreement in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants no. 2 to 5 were aware of the said agreement before execution of sale deeds and lease deeds in their favour. Accordingly, the said sale deeds and lease deeds were also challenged in the suit. Since defendant no. 1 committed breach of the agreement by executing sale deeds and lease deeds and also by not executing sale deed of the remaining suit land in favour of the plaintiff who always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the plaintiff filed the instant suit. 3. During pendency of the suit, Birmati LR of defendant no. 1 sold remaining 25 kanals 12 marlas suit land to defendants no. 6 to 8 vide sale deed dated 23.10.2003. Consequently, defendants no. 6 to 8 were impleaded in the suit and aforesaid sale deed in their favour was also challenged by amendment of plaint. 4. Defence of defendant no. During pendency of the suit, Birmati LR of defendant no. 1 sold remaining 25 kanals 12 marlas suit land to defendants no. 6 to 8 vide sale deed dated 23.10.2003. Consequently, defendants no. 6 to 8 were impleaded in the suit and aforesaid sale deed in their favour was also challenged by amendment of plaint. 4. Defence of defendant no. 1 was struck off as he failed to file written statement inspite of opportunities. Defendants no. 3, 6 to 8 were proceeded ex parte. Only defendants no. 2 and 4 filed written statement to contest the suit. They alleged that defendants no. 2 to 4 had already purchased 15 kanals 2 marlas land out of the suit land from defendant no. 1 prior to impugned agreement dated 11.7.1999 in favour of the plaintiff and had paid the entire sale consideration to defendant no. 1. The impugned agreement is illegal and concocted document. Defendant nos. 2 to 4 are bonafide purchasers of 15 kanals 2 marlas land for valuable consideration. Plaintiff was aware of the sale deeds in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4. Various other pleas were also raised. 5. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 5.9.2007 partly decreed the plaintiff’s suit regarding 25 kanals 12 marlas land out of the suit land and did not decree the suit regarding remaining 15 kanals 2 marlas land in suit which had been purchased by defendants no. 2 to 4. However, first appeal preferred by plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 13.8.2009 and thereby suit of the plaintiff has been decreed in toto regarding the entire suit land measuring 40 kanals 14 marlas. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no. 3 and 4 along with LRs of defendant no. 2 since deceased have filed RSA No. 438 of 2010 whereas defendant nos. 6 to 8 have filed RSA No. 3445 of 2009. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case files along with records of the courts below. 7. In so far as RSA No. 3445 of 2009 preferred by defendants no. 6 to 8 is concerned, the same is apparently frivolous and meritless. Defendants no. 6 to 8 are purchasers of part of the suit land during pendency of the suit. 7. In so far as RSA No. 3445 of 2009 preferred by defendants no. 6 to 8 is concerned, the same is apparently frivolous and meritless. Defendants no. 6 to 8 are purchasers of part of the suit land during pendency of the suit. The suit had been instituted on 16.10.1999 whereas sale deed in favour of defendants no. 6 to 8 was executed on 23.10.2003 i.e. four years after filing of the suit. Consequently, defendants no. 6 to 8 also cannot be said to be bonafide purchasers of the aforesaid land purchased by them. Sale in their favour is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. It may be mentioned that defendants no. 6 to 8 were proceeded ex parte in the trial court. Counsel for defendants no. 6 to 8 contended that they had moved application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the said application is still pending and for this reason, they had not preferred first appeal, but since decree of the trial court has merged with the decree of first appeal, defendants no. 6 to 8 have preferred second appeal. However, be that as it may, the fact remains that sale deed in favour of defendants no. 6 to 8 is hit by doctrine of lis pendens and therefore, appeal preferred by defendants no. 6 to 8 has no merit. 8. Now coming to appeal preferred by defendants no. 2 to 4, counsel for the appellants contended that there is agreement Ex. D1 dated 24.5.1999 executed in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4 by defendant no. 1 regarding sale of 15 kanals 2 marlas in question and the said agreement was executed prior to impugned agreement in favour of the plaintiff. It was, thus, contended that defendants no. 2 to 4 having purchased the aforesaid land through sale deeds dated 28.9.1999, Ex. D2 and dated 1/7.10.1999 Ex. D3 are bonafide purchasers of the said land for valuable consideration. It was also contended that impugned agreement Ex. P2 pleaded by the plaintiff was in fact prepared on 11.10.1999 but month thereof has been changed to depict that it was executed on 11.07.1999. It was thus pointed out that in fact the said agreement executed on 11.10.1999 was executed subsequent to the sale deeds Exs. D2 and D3 in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4. P2 pleaded by the plaintiff was in fact prepared on 11.10.1999 but month thereof has been changed to depict that it was executed on 11.07.1999. It was thus pointed out that in fact the said agreement executed on 11.10.1999 was executed subsequent to the sale deeds Exs. D2 and D3 in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4. Consequently, the said subsequent agreement has no bearing against rights of defendants no. 2 to 4. 9. On the other hand, counsel for respondent no. 1/plaintiff vehemently contended that stamp paper for executing agreement Ex. P2 was purchased on 6.7.1999 as per entry in the register of stamp vendor Ex. P1 and the agreement was executed on 11.7.1999 as per entry in the register of scribe Ex. PW2/B and thus, impugned agreement is dated 11.107.1999 executed much prior to the sale deeds in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4 and therefore, defendants no. 2 to 4 are also bound by the aforesaid agreement. It was also contended that agreement dated 24.5.1999 Ex. D1 was not pleaded in the written statement and therefore, cannot be looked into. It was argued that the said agreement has been prepared subsequently and antedated. 10. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. A bare perusal of original agreement Ex. P2 set up by the plaintiff reveals that there has been cutting and alteration in the date of the said agreement. Naresh Kumar, Advocate had drafted the said agreement and signed the same as such. He has written date below his signatures. A bare perusal thereof reveals that initially date written was 11.10.1999 and it was later on altered to 11.07.1999. Change of month from ‘10’ to ‘07’ in the said date is very much apparent on bare naked eye perusal of the original agreement. Coupled with the same, the date written by the scribe on the left margin of the agreement has also apparently been altered from 11.10.1999 to 11.07.1999. It thus becomes apparent that this agreement was executed subsequent to the sale deeds in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4. Consequently, sale deeds in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4 are protected and they are not bound by impugned agreement Ex. P2. 11. It thus becomes apparent that this agreement was executed subsequent to the sale deeds in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4. Consequently, sale deeds in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4 are protected and they are not bound by impugned agreement Ex. P2. 11. In the aforesaid context, it is significant to notice that in stamp vendor’s register, entry in question regarding purchase of stamp paper for impugned agreement purports to have been signed by one Ram Gurpal. Same Ram Gurpal has also made endorsement on agreement in his own hand and under his signatures that in the presence of witnesses, Bhoop Singh received Rs 1,50,000/- in cash. There is no explanation as to why said Ram Gurpal purchased stamp paper for the agreement although he is neither vendor nor vendee. As egards entry in the register of scribe Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate, the entry is dated 11.7.1999 but it bears Sr. No. 1 only. Consequently, said entry is highly suspicious. 12. As regards contention that agreement dated 24.5.1999 Ex. D1 was not pleaded by defendants no. 2 to 4 in the written statement, it is correct that the said agreement was not specifically pleaded in the written statement. However, photostat copy of the said agreement was placed on record. Thereafter, plaintiff moved application alleging that defendants no. 2 to 4 have pleaded agreement dated 24.5.1999 and have placed photostat copy of the said agreement on record. Plaintiff sought production of original agreement dated 24.5.1999 along with original sale deeds dated 28.9.1999 and 1/7.10.1999. Accordingly, the said original agreement dated 24.5.1999 and both original sale deeds were produced on record even before commencement of evidence of the plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff had due knowledge of the said agreement being set up by defendants no. 2 to 4. In addition to it, there is also reference to the said agreement in both sale deeds Exs. D2 and D3 although date of the agreement has not been written in the sale deeds. It would, thus, emerge that there is also an agreement in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4 which was executed prior to the impugned agreement in favour of the plaintiff even assuming that agreement in favour of plaintiff is dated 11.07.1999 although infact it was executed on 11.10.1999. It would, thus, emerge that there is also an agreement in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4 which was executed prior to the impugned agreement in favour of the plaintiff even assuming that agreement in favour of plaintiff is dated 11.07.1999 although infact it was executed on 11.10.1999. For this added reason also, sale deeds for 15 kanals 2 marlas land out of the suit land in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4 are protected. 13. It would also not be out of place to notice that agreement in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4 was at the rate of Rs 3,80,000/- per acre whereas agreement in favour of plaintiff is at the rate of Rs 1,40,000/- per acre only. This is again a highly suspicious circumstance going against the plaintiff. 14. Counsel for respondent no. 1 – plaintiff also contended that payment of sale consideration by defendants no. 2 to 4 is not proved. The contention cannot be accepted. Defendants no. 2 to 4 paid Rs 2 lacs as earnest money vide agreement dated 24.5.1999. Balance sale consideration was paid on different dates prior to execution of the two sale deeds as recited in the two sale deeds. Receipt of entire sale consideration was admitted by vendor defendant no. 1 by way of recitals in the sale deeds and also by way of admissions before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration thereof. Consequently, it cannot be said that sale deeds in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4 are without consideration. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that sale of 15 kanals 2 marlas land out of the suit land in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4 is protected and defendants no. 2 to 4 are bonafide purchasers thereof for valuable consideration and they are not bound by agreement in favour of the plaintiff. Finding of the lower appellate court to the contrary is perverse being based on misappreciation and misreading of evidence giving rise to substantial question of law for determination in this second appeal. The said substantial question is accordingly answered in favour of defendants no.2 to 4. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, RSA No. 3445 of 2009 preferred by defendants no. 6 to 8 is dismissed whereas RSA No. 438 of 2010 preferred by defendants no. 3 and 4 and LRs of respondent no. 2 is allowed. The said substantial question is accordingly answered in favour of defendants no.2 to 4. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, RSA No. 3445 of 2009 preferred by defendants no. 6 to 8 is dismissed whereas RSA No. 438 of 2010 preferred by defendants no. 3 and 4 and LRs of respondent no. 2 is allowed. Judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside whereas judgment and decree of the trial court are restored decreeing the suit of the plaintiff partly. -------------------