R.S.A. No. 1463 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1463 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.1.2011 Pal Singh ......Appellant Versus Ramotar and another .......Respondents ****** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.8.2001 and 23.5.2002. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that defendant No.1 was owner in possession of the suit property and had agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 30.8.2001. ` 50,000/- were paid as earnest money by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 at the time of execution of agreement to sell. The date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 1.5.2002. The date for execution of sale deed was extended from 1.5.2002 to 1.6.2002 on the basis of mutual consent of the parties. On the said date, anther sum of ` 40,000/- were paid by the plaintiff to defendant No.1. R.S.A. No. 1463 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Plaintiff, however, came to know that defendant No.1 had sold the property to defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated 24.9.2001. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 was proceeded ex parte as he failed to appear in the Court. Defendant No.2 in his written statement took up the plea that he was a bona fide purchaser for consideration and had no notice of the agreement to sell executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court :- “1. Whether defendant No.1 entered into an agreement of sale of suit land with the plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- on 30.8.2001 and received Rs.50,000/- as earnest money and also executed an agreement dated 23.5.2002 ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract ? OPP. 3. Whether the sale deed dated 24.9.201 in favour of defendant No.2 is fraudulent and liable to be set-aside ? OPP. 4. If the above issues are proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 20.8.2001 ? OPP. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. R.S.A. No. 1463 of 2010 (O&M) 3 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit ? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit ? OPD. 8. Whether the defendant No.2 is bonafide purchaser of valuable consideration without any notice of the agreement of sale ? OPD. 9. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 5.10.2005, the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed for recovery of ` 90,000/- from defendant No.1 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. 23.5.2002. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 17.9.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The point in controversy in this appeal is to effect as to whether defendant No.2 was a bona fide purchaser for consideration or not. The first agreement to sell was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 on 30.8.2001. Thereafter, vide mutual agreement dated 23.5.2002, the date for execution of the sale deed was extended from 1.5.2002 to 1.6.2002. However, at the time of extension of the date for execution of the sale-deed, defendant No.1 had already executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 24.9.2001. Defendant No.2 had no way of knowing of any agreement to R.S.A. No. 1463 of 2010 (O&M) 4 sell executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff had also failed to establish that defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 had colluded with each other to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record had given the findings of fact that defendant No.2 was bona fide purchaser for consideration. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 21, 2011 Anand