1 sa81­10 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.81 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.216 OF 2010 Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh & Anr. .. Appellants V/s. Shamrao Ramchandra Dhere & Others .. Respondents ..... Mr. Vinod Jadhav for the appellants. Mr. Vikas Kelekar for respondent No.1. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 16, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Appellants are the original defendant Nos.2 and 4. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the first defendant. By the impugned decree passed by the Appellate Court, the suit filed by the first respondent for specific performance of agreement for sale executed by the second respondent in favour of the first respondent has been decreed. The first appellant is the purchaser from the second respondent after execution of the suit agreement for sale and the second appellant is the subsequent purchaser from the first appellant. 2 sa81­10 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the second respondent was merely a tenant in respect of the suit land and, therefore, she had no authority to execute an agreement for sale and to convey ownership. His submission is that considering the fact that the second respondent is merely a tenant, the decree is not at all executable. He submitted that the first appellant is a bona fide purchaser without knowledge of the suit agreement. Therefore, there could have been a decree passed affecting the first appellant as well as the second appellant. 3. Admittedly, the sale deed in favour of the first appellant has been executed by the second respondent after execution of the suit agreement. Therefore, the only question is whether the appellant is a bona fide purchaser without the notice of the suit agreement. The finding of the Appellant Court is that the in cross­examination the first appellant admitted that before obtaining the sale deed he did not make any enquiry either in the office of the Sub­Registrar or the village Talathi of any prior transaction in resepct of the suit property. There is a further finding that there was no public notice published by the first appellant. Another admission of the first appellant noted is that he paid a sum of Rs.4,000/­ to the second respondent without execution of any document. Therefore, the finding of fact based 3 sa81­10 on admissions in cross­examination of the first appellant is that he has failed to prove he was a bona fide purchaser. 4. There is no reason to disturb the said finding of fact in the Second Appeal as no substantial question of law arises. Once it is held that the appellants are not the bona fide purchasers, they are bound by the suit agreement. 5. The issue of title has not been decided by the impugned Judgment and decrees in the sense that what the second respondents has agreed to transfer to the first respondent is only the alleged right, title and interest possessed by her. 6. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Second Appeal is dismissed. 7. Civil Application No.216 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)