JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J —The suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein (for short "the plaintiff") for rendition of a decree, for specific performance of contract, stood decreed, by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by defendant No.1/appellant herein, the latter Court dismissed the appeal besides obviously upheld the trial Court''s judgment and decree, hence, the instant appeal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that admittedly respondent No.2 herein/defendant No.1 (for short "defendant No.1) was recorded as co-sharer on land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 55/186, measuring 3 bighas 5 Biswas, situated at Mauza Kotga Kando, Tehsil Kamroo, and another parcel of the land in khata Khatauni No. 15/41 to 52 measuring 49 bighas 16 biswas in Mauza Kuner Dhamon, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. The said land came to him from his mother Dropti. By an agreement to sell of 7.11.1997 (Ex.PW2/A) , he agreed to sell 2 bighas 4 biswas out of the said land (referred to as suit land) to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.20, 000/- out of which he received a sum of Rs.15, 000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff and handed over the possession of the suit land on the spot. Since then, the plaintiff claims herself to be in possession of the suit land. However, by the said agreement of sale, defendant No.1 agreed to execute the registered sale deed on which the plaintiff was to pay the rest of the sale consideration of Rs.5, 000/- to defendant No. 1. The plaintiff''s grievance is that, though, she was ready and willing to perform her part of contact, however defendant No.1 has been delaying the execution of sale deed on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, he by a registered sale deed of 28.4.1998 sold the suit land to the appellant (referred to as defendant No. 2) which sale is illegal and void. Hence, she laid the present suit for specific performance of contract alongwith the suit for the decree of consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering, trespassing and alienating the suit land. 3. In written-statement filed by defendant No.1, he reasserted the case of the plaintiff as regards his having executed sale agreement with her. Hence, she laid the present suit for specific performance of contract alongwith the suit for the decree of consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering, trespassing and alienating the suit land. 3. In written-statement filed by defendant No.1, he reasserted the case of the plaintiff as regards his having executed sale agreement with her. His case is that sale deed Ex.DW-2/A was got executed from him under pressure and threat by defendant No.2 and the same is without sale consideration. 4. The suit was contested by defendant No2 and he has filed written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability. On merits, he asserts that defendant No.1 executed a valid registered sale deed in his favour on 18.2.1998 after receiving full sale consideration and has handed over the possession of the suit land to him. It is his further case that he is bona fide purchaser for value and without any notice. 5. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants wherein, she denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance of contract, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the defendant No.1 agreed to sell 2- 4 bighas of land from his share as alleged ?OPP 3. Whether the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal null and valid and not binding on rights of the plaintiff as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed? OPD2 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD2 6. Whether the defendant No.2 is the bonafide purchaser without notice as alleged ?OPD 2 7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action as alleged? OPD1 8. Whether the aforesaid agreement is the result of pressure and threat as alleged? OPD1 9. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, hence decreed the suit of the plaintiff. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the defendant No.2 before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, and, upheld the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 8. OPD1 9. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, hence decreed the suit of the plaintiff. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the defendant No.2 before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, and, upheld the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 8. Now the defendant No.2/appellant herein has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein he assails the findings recorded, in its impugned judgment(s) and decree(s) , by the learned Courts below. When the appeal came up for admission, on 1.6.2007, this Court, admitted the appeal, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- "Whether there has been misreading of evidence by both the Courts below in regard to issue No.1." Substantial question of Law. 9. Ex.Pw-2/A embodies therein, the, relevant contract of sale hence executed inter-se co-defendant No.1 vis-a-vis the plaintiff. Visibly the execution of Ex.PW-2/A, occurred, prior to execution, of a sale deed inter-se co-defendant No.1 vis-a-vis codefendant No.2, sale deed whereof is borne, in, Ex.DW-2/A. A candid besides an unequivocal recital, is, borne in Ex.PW-2/A qua, the, apt liquidations, of the entire sale consideration, by the plaintiff vis-a-vis co-defendant No.1, hence occurring at the time contemporaneous vis-a-vis its execution, and, also recitals, are, carried therein vis-a-vis, in contemporaneity thereof, also, delivery of possession, of, the suit land being hence made by codefendant No.1 vis-a-vis the plaintiff. 10. In aftermath, with the execution of Ex.PW-2/A, hence apparently, occurring prior to execution of Ex.DW-2/A, and, with the afore-referred recitals occurring, in, Ex.PW-2/A, being rendered corroboration thereto, by, hence, the testification(s) , of, apt marginal witnesses (PW-2 Ghasi Ram, and, PW-3 Rati Ram) , and, with theirs also making echoings'' in their respectively recorded testifications vis-a-vis, its valid and due execution, inter-se the plaintiff, and, defendant No.1, thereupon, the plaintiff would be entitled, to, derive the apt leverage, from, the provisions embodied, in, Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter1[53A. Part performance.-Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that 2[***] where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract: Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof.] 11. Contrarily the plea, espoused by co-defendant No.2, of his being, an ostensible owner of the suit property, arising, from his being a transferee, for, consideration and without notice, would, on evidence in satiation thereof, being testified by the witnesses'' concerned would rather disable, the, plaintiff to claim rendition of a decree of specific performance also would rather concomitantly disable, the, plaintiff to invalidate Ex.DW-2/A. 12. Nowat, for determining, the, trite factum probandum, of existence, of proof in display of valid, and, due execution, of Ex.PW-2/A, (i) it is imperative to allude, to the testifications'' rendered, by the marginal witnesses vis-a-vis Ex. PW-2/A, (ii) who while deposing, respectively as PW-2 and PW3, therein made echoings vis-a-vis, the valid and duly execution of Ex.PW-2/A, inter-se the plaintiff, and, co-defendant No.1, (iii) besides, in their respectively recorded depositions, they proceeded, to, also make articulations bearing consonance, with, the recitals occurring therein, (iv) especially qua, in contemporaneity vis-a-vis its execution, the entire sale consideration being liquidated by the plaintiff vis-a-vis codefendant No.1, (v) also, in contemporaneity vis-a-vis its execution, the, possession of the suit land being delivered by codefendant No.1, to the plaintiff. The afore-referred testifications, of PW-2 and PW-3, were not concerted to be shred of their efficacy, even during the ordeal, of, the learned counsel for defendant No.2, hence, subjecting them to crossexamination, thereupon, it is to be concluded, of, the aforereferred testifications hence acquiring a hue of conclusivity. 13. The effect of conclusivity being acquired by the afore-referred testifications'', rendered by PW-2 and PW-3, is, of co-defendant No.2 also acquiescing qua the plaintiff, prior, to execution of Ex.DW-2/A inter-se him, and, defendant No. 1, hence holding possession, of, the suit khasra Numbers. However, the effect, of, the aforesaid inference may be scuttled by evidence, existing on record (i) displaying qua given the improximity of the abode of co-defendant No.2 vis-a-vis the suit khasra Numbers, hence his being disabled, to, discover, the aforesaid factum. However with co-defendant No. 2 while stepping into the witness box, rather, in his cross-examination hence making a clear echoing, of his land, occurring in proximity vis-a-vis the suit khasra number, rather bolsters an inference, of his holding , the apt knowledge of the plaintiff prior to the execution of Ex.DW-2/A inter-se him, and, co- defendant No.2, hence holding possession of the suit khasra Numbers. 14. The effect of the aforesaid apt knowledge, hence, acquired by co-defendant No.2, also galvanizes a concomitant inference of his being precluded, to, espouse of his being construable to be a transferee without notice, for consideration nor hence he can hence derive any benefit, of, the statutory provisions borne in Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "Section 41 in The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 41. Transfer by ostensible owner.-Where, with the consent, express or implied, of the persons interested in immoveable property, a person is the ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for consideration, the transfer shall not be voidable on the ground that the transferor was not authorised to make it: provided that the transferee, after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer, has acted in good faith." 15. Significantly with his holding knowledge, qua, the aforesaid relevant facet, he is construed to be also holding "notice" of execution, of Ex.PW-2/A inter-se the plaintiff, and, co-defendant No.1, (I) especially, when, the connotation, of, the statutory parlance, "notice" occurring, in Section 41, of, the Transfer of Property Act, (ii) is of its embodying therein, the, apposite knowledge of the subsequent vendee vis-a-vis the prior thereto, validly and duly executed Ex.PW-2/A inter-se the plaintiff, and, co-defendant No.1. 16. Be that as it may, even defendant No.2, in his examination-in-chief, has not made any echoing, for erecting any conclusion, of, his prior to execution of Ex.DW-2/A inter-se him and co-defendant No.1, his holding, hence, possession of the suit land, (i) nor also the testification rendered by defendant No.2, especially the one existing in the latters'' crossexamination, wherein, he, rather with nebulousness, hence, makes echoings, of his being unaware vis-a-vis the factum of delivery, of, possession by co-defendant No.1 to the plaintiff (ii) , also cannot, with any firmness, erect any inference qua in contemporaneity vis-a-vis the execution of Ex.DW-2/A inter-se co-defendant No.1, and, co-defendant No.2, the latter proceeding to take delivery, of, possession, hence, of the suit khasra Nos. Natural corollary thereof, is qua the unrebutted testifications'' rendered respectively by PW-2, and, by PW-3 visa-vis, the, plaintiff holding hence possession, of, the suit khasra Nos. (iii) when stands entwined therewith, and, further when entwining therewith, the, marked admission existing, in, the cross-examination of defendant No.2, of, his owning land, abutting, the suit khasra Number, all hence squaring, off, an inference qua his perse holding knowledge vis-a-vis the suit land, being, cultivated by the plaintiff, (iv) and, hence leading, to an inevitable inference of co-defendant No.2, abysmally failing to prove qua his, being a transferee, for valuable consideration and without notice vis-a-vis, the, apt prior thereto valid execution, of Ex.PW-2/A, inter-se the plaintiff, and, codefendant No.1 (v) thereupon, with, proof emanating, from, the respectively rendered testifications by PW-2, and, by PW-3 visa-vis (a) its valid and due execution (b) vis-a-vis delivery of apt possession in contemporaneity thereof, and, the apt redeeming of the entire sale consideration, in, contemporaneity vis-a-vis execution, of Ex.PW-2/A (vi) thereupon rather the plaintiff being entitled, not only, to a decree of specific performance, but, also his being entitled to get the benefit, of, the apt provisions embodied, in, Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. 17. 17. In view of the above, the appreciation, of, the evidence by the learned Courts below, does not suffer, from any infirmity as well as perversity. Consequently, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, and, the judgment and decree of the learned Courts below, is, maintained, and, affirmed. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Records be sent back forthwith. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.