1 42-sa364-11 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.364 OF 2011 Maruti Kallappa Patil .. Appellant V/s. Nemanna Laxman Patil & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. B. A. Pawar for the appellant. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 28, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Appellant is the original plaintiff who filed a suit for specific performance for agreement for sale executed by the original defendant No.5. The trial Court has passed a decree for specific performance. In the Appeal preferred by the original defendant Nos.1 to 4, the said decree has been set aside. The first to fourth respondents claimed to be a bona fide purchasers on the basis of the sale deed dated 16th April, 1985. 2. The Appellate Court held that the first to fourth respondents have proved that they are bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the suit agreement and, therefore, the decree for specific performance has been set aside. 2 42-sa364-11 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence adduced by the first to fourth respondents to show that they are bona fide purchasers in as much as they had not taken any precautions before obtaining the sale deed. 4. The first to fourth respondents purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed from the vendor of the appellant-plaintiff after the execution of the suit agreement. Under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a decree for specific performance could have been passed against the first to fourth respondents. But, if it is established that they were bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of the suit agreement, the Court was not empowered to pass a decree against them. 5. The Appellate Court has referred to the evidence of the constituted attorney of the appellant who stepped into the witness box. He admitted in the cross-examination that the first to fourth respondents were not aware about the transaction between the appellant-plaintiff and the predecessor of the original defendant No.5. In view of this admitted position noted from the evidence of the constituted attorney of the appellant, the Appellate Court has held that the first to fourth respondents are bona fide purchasers of the suit premises. No substantial question of law arises as the 3 42-sa364-11 said finding is recorded on the basis of the admission of the constituted attorney of the appellant himself. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)