K.N. Seth, J. - (1.) THE Plaintiff Respondent brought a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale relating to Bhumidhari plots No. 1480, 1482, 1490 and 1491 situate in Sikandrabad on the allegation that on 7 -6 -1966 Smt. Saeedan, Defendant No. 1, agreed to sell these plots to the Plaintiff for Rs. 20,000/ - and in pursuance of that agreement a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - was advanced to her. The sale deed was to be executed by 4 -6 -1969. The Plaintiff asked Smt. Saeedan to execute the sale deed but she avoided to do so and hence the suit. In the suit Smt. Saeedan alone was impleaded as a Defendant.
(2.) SMT . Saeedan contested the suit and pleaded that she never agreed to sell the plots in suit to the Plaintiff and no agreement was executed by her as alleged. She denied to have received Rs 5,000/ -as advance from the Plaintiff. It was asserted that in 1966 when the alleged agreement is said to have been executed a litigation in respect of the plots in question was pending and her rights and share even had not been determined. Subsequently her share was determined at one third only. She was, however, prosecuting her appeal and writ petition claiming the entire plots in dispute. In the litigations between her and the brothers of her husband the Plaintiff used to do Pairvi on her behalf and in that connection he had obtained her thumb impressions and those of her sons on blank papers and appear to fabricated the agreement on these papers. Later on the plaint was got amended. Defendants No. 2 to 4 as one set and Defendants No. 5 and 6 as another set were added to the array of parties. Paragraph 5(Aa) was added wherein it was alleged that during the pendency of the suit Defendant No. 1, claiming herself, to be owner of only one third share in the disputed plots, transferred her share in favour of Defendants No. 2 to 4 under a sale deed dated 20th April 1970 and consequently it had become necessary to implead them as Defendants. In paragraph 5(Bb) it was alleged that in chak No. 5 Alladia, husband of Smt. Saeedan, and his brothers Alimuddin and Ramzani were cosharers and chak No. 25 stood in the name of Alladia alone. Alimuddin and Ramzani had no concern with this chak. Both the chaks were made joint for facility of cultivation. Necessary consequential amendments were made in the relief claimed in the suit. It was specifically prayed that Defendants No. 1 to 4 be directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff and in case the court came to the conclusion that it was necessary to partition chaks No. 5 and 25 the Plaintiff be delivered possession over 8 Bighas, 16 Biswas and 10 Biswansis of chak No. 25 against the Defendants.
(3.) DEFENDANTS No. 2 to 4 in their written statement pleaded that Defendant No. 1 was not the owner of the entire plots but had only one third share in them which she transferred to them under the sale deed dated 20th April 1970. They also pleaded that they were bona fide transferees for value without notice of the agreement in favour of the Plaintiff. Defendants No. 5 and 6 did not file any written statement.;