UMESHWAR PANDEY, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 4.12.2006 passed by the lower appellate court whereby It has reversed the judgment of the trial court and has decreed the respondents' suit for specific performance of contract. The aforesaid relief of specific performance of contract was sought on the basis of registered agreement dated 7.5.1997 allegedly executed by the respondent defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 did not come to contest the suit and the subsequent purchaser, the defendant No. 2 did appear and filed his written statement stating that no agreement with regard to the disputed property was ever executed by his vendor, the defendant No. 1 and if there is any such document relied upon by the plaintiff, it is just a forged document. It is further pleaded that the defendant No. 2 appellant had no knowledge of such agreement and he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the earlier contract between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1.
(3.) THE trial court on the pleadings of the parties formulated several issues and recorded its findings. It held that the advance money accepted by the defendant in pursuance to the earlier agreement was subsequently refunded by him to the plaintiff and that the defendant No. 2 did not have any information of such earlier agreement and he happened to be bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the earlier contract. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Against this judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the first appellate court recorded otherwise findings holding that the plaintiff defendant No. 2 did have the knowledge of the earlier contract of sale and that he was not entitled to take a plea of the ignorance of such contract. The court below has further found that since the defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit, it was obvious that the agreement in question was a valid agreement and it has to be specifically performed by the parties. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was set aside and the appeal was allowed by decreeing the suit.;