IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1996 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 20, 2009 Hardeep Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Rishi Daya Nand and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. V.K.Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anuj Balian, advocate for the appellants. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by respondent No.1-Rishi Daya Nand for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 1.6.2000 executed by respondent No.2-Kashmir Singh, was decreed by the trial Court. First appeal filed by the appellants who claimed to have purchased the suit property from respondent No.2 vide sale deed dated 9.3.2001 was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. They are now before this court by way of second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were bonafide purchasers of the suit property as they had no notice of the earlier agreement dated 1.6.2000. It is not in dispute that the appellants owned land adjacent to the suit land. Both the parties belonged to small villages where it was RSA No. 1996 of 2009 -2- highly unlikely for its residents of not knowing about the sale transaction. While filing their written statement, the appellants had admitted the execution of the agreement dated 1.6.2000. However, they did not plead that earlier to the sale deed dated 9.3.2001 executed by respondent No.2 in their favour, they had entered into some sort of agreement of sale. Even no consideration was paid before the Sub Registrar at the time of execution of the sale deed dated 9.3.2001. That is sufficient indication of the fact that the sale transaction in favour of the appellants was completed and registered on the same day. The undue haste shown in execution of the sale deed dated 9.3.2001 leads the Court to draw an inference that the same had been executed just to defeat the right of plaintiff-respondent No.1 which had accrued in his favour by way of execution of agreement to sell dated 1.6.2000. No evidence had been led by the defendants-appellants that any enquiry had been made about the suit land by approaching the revenue authorities or from any other source. Even DW1 Jeet Singh, father of Hardeep Singh-appellant and DW3 Sohan Singh, father of Sukhwinder Singh-appellant did not divulge the details about the efforts and enquiry made by him before purchasing the suit land. His only stand was that he had made an enquiry from the revenue record and, thereafter, purchased the suit land. Neither the Patwari through whom the revenue record had been checked had been examined nor any receipt produced to show that an application had been given to the concerned official for checking the RSA No. 1996 of 2009 -3- revenue record. The judgment in the case of Kanhaya Lal Bisakhi Ram V Bishen Das Mewa Ram AIR 1934 Lahore 59 wherein it was held that no adverse inference could be drawn against the defendants for not stepping into the witness box, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the defendants-appellants did not deny the knowledge of agreement to sell dated 1.6.2000. Similarly, the ratio of Mrs. Vijaya Shrivastava V M/s Mirahul Enterprises & Others 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 741 that the Court could deny specific performance if the subsequent purchaser was a bonafide purchaser for value and without notice, is not applicable in the present case as both the Courts below after going through the evidence available on the file came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance whereas the defendants-appellants were not bonafide purchasers. I have perused the judgments passed by the Courts below and find that the same are based upon the evidence available on the file and considered in its proper perspective. Moreover, none of the substantial questions of law, as framed by learned counsel for the appellants, arises for determination. Therefore, no case is made out for any interference in the judgment and decree for possession by way of specific performance, as granted by the Courts below. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) RSA No. 1996 of 2009 -4- August 20, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1