Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 445 (MAD)

D. Harilal (deceased) v. K. Sampath

2014-02-24

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2014
Judgment 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.64 of 1987, on the file of the Sub-Court, Villupuram, is the appellant. Pending the appeal, the plaintiff died and hence his legal representatives have been brought on record as appellants 2 to 5. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 22.11.1978, and the suit was dismissed and as against the same, this appeal is filed. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The suit property originally belonged to Pattabiraman and the first defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the said Pattabiraman on 14.5.1977, for purchasing the suit property and as the said Pattabiraman refused to execute the sale deed, the first defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.546/1978 for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 14.5.1977, against the said Pattabiraman and the suit was decreed in favour of the first defendant. While so, the first defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 22.11.1978, in respect of the very same property, which is the subject matter of the agreement of sale dated 14.5.1977, and O.S.No.546/1978 and the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.41,000/- against the total sale consideration of Rs.59,000/-. It is agreed that after the first defendant obtained the sale deed pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.546/1978, the first defendant should execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and the first defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff as he was not in a position to mobilise funds to pay the balance sale consideration as per the sale agreement dated 14.5.1977. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance sale consideration and the first defendant did not inform about the progress of the suit in O.S.No.546/1978 nor about the decree passed in his favour in the said suit. Whenever the plaintiff enquired the first defendant about the suit, he was giving evasive reply. In May, 1987, the plaintiff came to know that even in 1983, the first defendant obtained the sale deed in respect of the suit property pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.546/1978, and therefore, issued a notice dated 17.5.1987, to the first defendant and the first defendant received the notice and sent a reply containing untenable allegation. In May, 1987, the plaintiff came to know that even in 1983, the first defendant obtained the sale deed in respect of the suit property pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.546/1978, and therefore, issued a notice dated 17.5.1987, to the first defendant and the first defendant received the notice and sent a reply containing untenable allegation. The plaintiff went to the village of the first defendant and made enquiries and came to know that some of the lands, which were agreed to be sold to him, were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, and a compensation of Rs.1,26,505.65 was awarded to the first defendant and the first defendant also sold the suit properties to the defendants 2 and 3 and therefore, the defendants 2 and 3 were impleaded as parties to the suit. The second and third defendants were aware of the agreement of sale between the first defendant and the plaintiff. Therefore, they are not bonafide purchasers for value. The plaintiff also sent a letter to the Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Villupuram, requesting him not to pay the award amount to the first defendant mentioning about the agreement of sale between him and the first defendant. The third defendant predated the sale deed and got the sale deed registered later and therefore, the defendants 2 and 3 are not bonafide purchasers for value. Therefore, the first defendant is liable to execute the sale deed as per the agreement of sale and the suit is filed only for the remaining extent of lands, which are available with the first defendant and also the subject matter of sale deeds in favour of the defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff also prayed for alternative relief of refund of advance amount of Rs.41,000/- with Rs.18,000/- towards damages in the event if the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. 3. The first defendant filed a statement denying the agreement of sale dated 22.11.1978, between himself and the plaintiff. He also denied the receipt of advance of Rs.41,000/- under the agreement of sale. He denied the allegation that he entered into an agreement of sale for the purpose of paying the balance sale consideration to Pattabiraman as per the agreement of sale dated 14.5.1977. He also denied the receipt of advance of Rs.41,000/- under the agreement of sale. He denied the allegation that he entered into an agreement of sale for the purpose of paying the balance sale consideration to Pattabiraman as per the agreement of sale dated 14.5.1977. Nevertheless, he admitted that he filed a suit against Pattabiraman for specific performance and the suit was decreed on 27.3.1982, and pursuant to the decree, he deposited the balance sale consideration and got the sale deed executed by the Court and also got possession of the property on 6.4.1983. The plaintiff and the first defendant were moving closely and taking advantage of their intimacy, the plaintiff got the signature of the first defendant in blank papers and the agreement of sale must have been fabricated by using one such papers. Even assuming that the agreement of sale was entered into by the first defendant with the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance and the suit is also barred by limitation. The plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the plaintiff never asked the first defendant to execute the sale deed as per the agreement of sale, and only after receipt of the notice sent by the plaintiff, the first defendant came to know that the agreement of sale was fabricated by the plaintiff and suitable reply was given. The plaintiff has not come out with full particulars and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. He also filed additional statement stating that the suit for specific performance in respect of certain items of property is not maintainable and the plaintiff omitted to include the property in Survey No.42 having an extent of 3 acres and 7 cents. The sales in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 are genuine and proper consideration was paid. 5. The first defendant also filed another additional statement stating that the suit for specific performance and the alternative relief of return of advance and damages is barred by limitation and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. The sales in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 are genuine and proper consideration was paid. 5. The first defendant also filed another additional statement stating that the suit for specific performance and the alternative relief of return of advance and damages is barred by limitation and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. The second defendant filed a statement stating that he is a bonafide purchaser for value and was not aware of the agreement of sale between the plaintiff and the first defendant and also denied the allegation that the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the first defendant on 22.11.1978, and paid an advance of Rs.41,000/- and as the second defendant is a bonafide purchaser for value, he is not bound to execute a sale deed in respect of the property purchased by him, and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. He also took the plea that the suit is barred by limitation. 7. The third defendant filed his statement claiming that he is a bonafide purchaser for value and he was not aware of the agreement of sale between the plaintiff and the first defendant and the suit is also barred by limitation. The third defendant also filed additional statement stating that he paid the consideration on the date of sale viz. 16.4.1987, without having any knowledge of the agreement of sale between the plaintiff and the first defendant and therefore, he is a bonafide purchaser for value. 8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: (1) Whether the agreement of sale dated 22.11.1978, is true and valid? (2) Whether the defendants 2 and 3 are bonafide purchasers for value? (3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (4) Whether the defendants 2 and 3 are entitled to claim costs of Rs.1,000/-? (5) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 9. The following additional issues were also framed by the trial Court: (1) Whether the claim of the plaintiff to recover Rs.59,000/- is barred by limitation? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the alternative relief prayed for? 10. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined the scribe to the agreement of sale as P.W.2. (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the alternative relief prayed for? 10. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined the scribe to the agreement of sale as P.W.2. He also marked Exs.A1 to A12. On the side of the defendants, 4 witnesses were examined and 13 exhibits were marked. The trial Court tried issue No.(1) and additional issue No.(2) together and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance and also not entitled to claim Rs.59,000/-. The trial Court considered issue No.(2) and held that the second defendant is not a bonafide purchaser for value; but, the third defendant is a bonafide purchaser for value. Issue No.(3) and additional issue Nos.(1) and (3) were considered together and the trial Court held that the suit for specific performance is barred by time and the relief of recovery of money is also barred by time and the plaintiff is not entitled to the alternative relief of recovery of the amount. Issue No.(4) was answered against the defendants 2 and 3. In the result, the suit was dismissed holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed. 11. Mr. R. Balakrishnan, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence and pleading, erred in holding that the plaintiff/first appellant is not entitled to the relief of specific performance and he was not having the means to pay the balance sale consideration and the third defendant was a bonafide purchaser for value and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance. The learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the trial Court ought to have held that the agreement of sale dated 22.11.1978, is a genuine one, as the first defendant admitted his signature and no acceptable explanation was given by the first defendant for signing in a blank paper as alleged by him in the written statement. The learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the trial Court ought to have held that the agreement of sale dated 22.11.1978, is a genuine one, as the first defendant admitted his signature and no acceptable explanation was given by the first defendant for signing in a blank paper as alleged by him in the written statement. He also submitted that the execution of Ex.A1 was also proved by examination of P.W.2 and therefore, having regard to the admission of the signature of first defendant in Ex.A1 and the evidence of P.W.2, the Court below ought to have held that the agreement of sale was a genuine one and was executed by the first defendant. He also submitted that the Court below also committed serious error in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. He submitted that as per the agreement of sale Ex.A1, the first defendant ought to have executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after obtaining the sale deed in his favour pursuant to the decree in O.S.No.546/1978, and therefore, the time begins to run only from the date of knowledge of the sale deed in favour of the first defendant pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.546/1978 and it is not the case of the first defendant that immediately after getting the decree in the year 1982, the plaintiff was informed about the decree and the plaintiff was asked to pay the balance sale consideration and he did not pay the balance sale consideration and in the absence of any such evidence, the evidence of P.W.1 has to be accepted that he came to know about the sale deed obtained by the first defendant through Court, only in May, 1987, and immediately thereafter, he issued a notice Ex.A3 calling upon the first defendant to execute the sale deed and therefore, the time begins to run only from May, 1987, and the suit was filed in June, 1987, and hence, the suit was not barred by limitation. He also submitted that the right to claim the refund of the advance amount with damages arises only in the event of refusal of the decree of specific performance and the plaintiff came to know about the decree obtained by the first defendant only in May, 1987, and immediately thereafter, he filed the suit and also prayed for alternative relief and hence the alternative relief is also not barred by limitation and the Court below ought to have granted the alternative relief and directed the first defendant to return the advance amount with damages. He also submitted that the Court below having held that the second defendant is not a bonafide purchaser for value, ought to have decreed the suit in respect of the property purchased by the second defendant, and the Court below was also not correct in holding that the third defendant was a bonafide purchaser for value in the absence of any evidence to that effect. He therefore, submitted that the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit as prayed for and in any event, the trial Court ought to have granted the alternative relief and directed the first defendant to refund the advance amount with damages. He also relied upon the judgments reported in AIR 1985 ANDHRA PRADESH 393 (K.SAMBASIVA RAO V. P.BANGARU RAJU); AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 529 (RAMZAN V. HUSSAINI) and 1999 – 1 – L.W. 72 (SC) (SRI BABU RAM @ DURGA PRASAD V. SRI INDRA PAL SINGH (DEAD) BY Lrs) in support of his contentions. 12. Mr. Krishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 9, submitted that the trial Court after properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance and the suit was also barred by time. He submitted that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and having regard to the prevaricating stand taken by the plaintiff in the notice, in the pleading and in his evidence, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He also submitted that the agreement of sale Ex.A1 could not have been executed by the first defendant having regard to the admitted facts of the case and also having regard to the recitals in Ex.A1. He therefore, submitted that the trial Court correctly dismissed the suit and it does not call for any interference and relied upon the judgment reported in 2012 (1) CTC 46 (S.THIRUGNANASAMBANDAM V. P.KALIYAPERUMAL AND OTHERS) in support of his contention. 13. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Counsel for the second defendant/second respondent, submitted that the second defendant purchased the suit property prior to the receipt of notice and the document was only registered on the next date and on that ground, the second defendant cannot be held to be a purchaser with knowledge of the agreement of sale. He also submitted that the sale deed in favour of the second defendant was executed 15 days earlier to the notice Ex.A3 and notice was received on 16.6.1987 and the sale deed was registered on 17.6.1987 and the sale deed takes effect from the date of execution and therefore, the second defendant is a bonafide purchaser for value and the finding of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 14. On the basis of the above submissions, the following points for consideration arise in this appeal: (1) Whether the agreement of sale Ex.A1 was executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff? (2) Whether the plaintiff/first appellant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? (3) Whether the defendants 2 and 3 are bonafide purchasers for value? (4) Whether the relief of specific performance and the alternative relief of refund of advance amount and damages are barred by limitation? 15. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has to prove that there is an agreement of sale; he is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; he is not guilty of any latches or suppression of any material facts; his conduct is bonafide and the suit is also within the period of limitation. In this case, it is the specific stand taken by the first defendant that he did not execute the agreement of sale though his signature in Ex.A1 is admitted. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the plaintiff to prove that the agreement of sale Ex.A1 was executed by the first defendant. In this case, it is the specific stand taken by the first defendant that he did not execute the agreement of sale though his signature in Ex.A1 is admitted. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the plaintiff to prove that the agreement of sale Ex.A1 was executed by the first defendant. The plaintiff examined himself and also examined P.W.2 the scribe, to prove that the agreement of sale was executed by the first defendant. Therefore, we have to see whether the plaintiff has proved the execution of the agreement of sale by the first defendant. Ex.A3 is the notice issued by the plaintiff on 17.5.1987, calling upon the first defendant to execute the sale deed. In Ex.A3, he mentioned about the agreement of sale and also the payment of the advance amount on the same date and further stated that as per the terms of the agreement, the first defendant should execute the sale deed as soon as he took delivery of the property through Court after getting sales certificate from the Court. He also stated that he was requesting the first defendant to execute the sale deed; but, the first defendant was giving evasive reply stating that he has not taken delivery of the properties through Court. The allegation in the notice Ex.A3, is contrary to the agreement of sale dated 22.11.1978, and also the pleading. Ex.A1 is the agreement of sale, wherein, it is stated that an advance of Rs.41,000/- was already received for payment of advance amount to the agreement of sale dated 14.5.1977, and after getting the sale deed pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 14.5.1977, the first defendant agreed to execute the sale deed after receipt of the balance sale consideration. In the plaint, it is stated that on 22.11.1978, an agreement was entered into for a sum of Rs.59,000/- for the purpose of purchasing the lands mentioned in O.S.No.546/1978, and the plaintiff also paid a sum of Rs.41,000/- as advance and the balance amount was agreed to be paid at the time when the first defendant executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant had no money to deposit the balance sale consideration in respect of the agreement, for which, O.S.No.546/1978 was filed, and therefore, he agreed to sell the lands to the plaintiff. The first defendant had no money to deposit the balance sale consideration in respect of the agreement, for which, O.S.No.546/1978 was filed, and therefore, he agreed to sell the lands to the plaintiff. The first defendant also agreed to execute the sale deed as soon as he got the sale deed from Pattabiraman and others. The plaintiff while examining himself as P.W.1, also came out with a different version regarding the execution of Ex.A1. In cross-examination, he had stated that on 24.5.1977, he gave a cheque for Rs.10,000/- to the first defendant and that amount was paid to the original owner Srinivasa Iyengar by the first defendant and an agreement was entered into on 14.5.1977, and the first defendant signed Ex.A1 in his house on 14.5.1977. He also admitted in chief-examination, that he was not aware of the nature of the case in O.S.No.546/1978 filed by the first defendant, and he has not stated in the plaint, that the first defendant agreed to sell the property to him as he was unable to pay the balance sale consideration to the credit of O.S.No.546/1978. 16. According to me, the plaintiff has come out with different case in his notice, in his plaint, in his agreement and also in his evidence. As stated supra, in the agreement of sale Ex.A1, it is stated that a sum of Rs.41,000/- was already paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant. In Ex.A3, the first notice, the plaintiff has stated that the sum of Rs.41,000/- was paid as an advance on the same date viz. 22.11.1978. In the plaint, it has been stated that he paid a sum of Rs.41,000/- as advance and it was agreed by both the parties that the balance amount should be paid at the time when the defendant in O.S.No.546/1978 executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff therein. It is also stated that the first defendant agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as and when he gets the sale deed from Pattabiraman and others, who are the original owners. Therefore, the plaintiff has not come out with the clear allegation when the sum of Rs.41,000/- was paid. It is also stated that the first defendant agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as and when he gets the sale deed from Pattabiraman and others, who are the original owners. Therefore, the plaintiff has not come out with the clear allegation when the sum of Rs.41,000/- was paid. In the notice, he has stated that the amount was paid on the date of agreement and in the agreement, it has been stated that the amount was paid already and in evidence, he would state that on various occasions, the amount was paid. Further, the conduct of the plaintiff will also lead to the conclusion that Ex.A1 could not have been executed as alleged by the plaintiff. As seen from the recitals in Ex.A1 the agreement of sale, the plaintiff was aware of the earlier agreement entered into by the first defendant with the owners and in the evidence, the plaintiff would say that he was not aware of the nature of the case filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.546/1978. When the plaintiff was aware that the first defendant has entered into an agreement for the purchase of the suit property from the original owners and for that purpose, he paid an advance of Rs.41,000/-, he would have taken interest in knowing about the outcome of the case and the contention of the plaintiff that he was not aware of the proceedings in O.S.No.546/1978 and he came to know only in May, 1987, about the decree passed in favour of the first defendant cannot be accepted. Therefore, it is highly doubtful whether any consideration was paid on the date of agreement and whether the first defendant agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff as per the agreement of sale dated 22.11.1978. Considering all these aspects in a detailed manner, the trial Court held that Ex.A1 is not a true document and the plaintiff failed to prove that Ex.A1 was executed by the first defendant agreeing to sell the property to him and therefore, the suit for specific performance is not maintainable. I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the trial Court, and therefore, point No.(1) is answered against the appellants and I hold that the agreement of sale Ex.A1 was not proved to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. 17. I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the trial Court, and therefore, point No.(1) is answered against the appellants and I hold that the agreement of sale Ex.A1 was not proved to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. 17. Even assuming that the agreement of sale was executed by the first defendant as alleged by the plaintiff, the next question that arises for consideration, is whether the suit was filed within the period of limitation. Admittedly, Ex.A1 is dated 22.11.1978, and as per the recitals in Ex.A1, after getting the sale deed by the first defendant from the original owners pursuant to the agreement dated 14.5.1977, the first defendant would execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is also admitted that the first defendant got the suit O.S.No.546/1978 decreed on 27.3.1982, and the first defendant also got possession of the property on 6.4.1983. In Ex.A3 the notice, sent by the plaintiff to the first defendant, it has been stated that the first defendant should execute the sale deed as soon as he took delivery of properties through Court after getting the sales certificate from the Subordinate Judge Court, Tindivanam and the plaintiff was requesting the first defendant to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement; but, the first defendant was giving evasive reply stating that he has not taken delivery of the properties through Court. He also stated that he reliably understood that the first defendant got sales certificate in his favour and also took possession of the properties through Court. In Ex.A3, he has not stated the date, on which, he came to know about the sale deed executed by the Court in favour of the first defendant and the date, on which, possession was taken by the first defendant. But, he admitted his knowledge about the execution of the sale deed by the Court in favour of the first defendant, pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.546/1978, and the possession taken by the first defendant. In paragraph No.2 of the notice, he also stated that as soon as the first defendant got delivery of the properties, he ought to have executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In paragraph No.2 of the notice, he also stated that as soon as the first defendant got delivery of the properties, he ought to have executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the allegation in the plaint, that only in May, 1987, the plaintiff came to know about the sales certificate in favour of the first defendant even in the year 1983, cannot be a true one. In the evidence, the plaintiff has stated that he was not aware of the nature of proceedings and he never made any enquiries about the case, nor the progress of the case and having regard to the recital in Ex.A1 the agreement of sale, and the contents of Ex.A3, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff came to know about the sale deed in favour of the first defendant only in May, 1987, and immediately, thereafter, he issued a notice and filed the suit cannot be accepted. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove when he came to know about the sale deed in favour of the first defendant and having regard to the contents of Ex.A3 notice, the plaintiff must be aware of the sale deed in favour of the first defendant and also the delivery of possession in favour of the first defendant through Court. As per the agreement of sale, the time begins to run from the date, on which, the sale deed was executed in favour of the first defendant pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.546/1978. Admittedly, the suit was decreed on 27.3.1982, and therefore, the present suit ought to have been filed within three years and the suit was filed only in 1987 and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. The judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellants, cannot be applied to the facts of the case and in this case, the time begins to run from the date, on which, the sale deed was executed in favour of the first defendant pursuant to the decree in O.S.No.546/1978, and as already stated supra, the suit was decreed on 27.3.1982, and the sale deed was executed on 6.4.1983. 18. 18. I have already held that the plaintiff failed to prove the passing of consideration under Ex.A1 and the examination of the plaintiff would also prove that he was not having sufficient means to pay the sale consideration as per Ex.A1. Therefore, when the plaintiff failed to prove the payment of sale consideration as per Ex.A1 and when the plaintiff also failed to prove the execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale, by the first defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim refund of any advance amount with damages. Hence point No.(4) is answered against the appellants and I hold that the relief of specific performance is barred by limitation and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim refund of the advance amount with damages as he failed to prove the payment of advance as per Ex.A1. 19. Having regard to the finding given in respect of point Nos.(1) and (4), there is no need to answer point Nos.(2) and (3). According to me, the plaintiff has not proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and the conduct of the plaintiff in keeping quiet without watching the proceedings in O.S.No.546/1978 and giving prevaricating explanation for not approaching the first defendant, thereby demanding the execution of the sale deed, would also prove that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Therefore, point No.(2) is also answered against the appellants. 20. The submission of the learned Counsel for the second respondent that the second respondent/second defendant is a bonafide purchaser for value cannot be accepted and the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the second defendant/second respondent is not a bonafide purchaser for value. Nevertheless, having regard to the finding that the plaintiff/first appellant failed to prove the agreement of sale and the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, even assuming that the second defendant/second respondent was not a bonafide purchaser, that would not disentitle him from claiming right to the property as he purchased the property for value and even assuming that he purchased the property after knowing the agreement of sale, as the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance, the sale in favour of the second defendant is a valid one. The trial Court has rightly held that the third defendant purchased the property without knowing the agreement of sale and he is a bonafide purchaser for value and no contra evidence has been let in by the plaintiff/first appellant to prove that the third defendant was not a bonafide purchaser for value. Hence the trial Court has rightly held that the sale in favour of the third defendant, is binding on the plaintiff. However, as stated supra, having regard to the finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance, the title of the third defendant cannot be questioned by the plaintiff. Point No.(3) is also answered against the appellants. 21. In the result, the judgment and decree of the trial Court made in O.S.No.64/1987 dated 22.10.1991, are confirmed and this appeal suit is dismissed. No costs.