PRAKASH KRISHNA,J. - (1.) THIS is defendants' first appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure. It arises out of suit No. 12 of 1973 instituted by Matadin (since deceased) and his son Shri Ram Singh against Pratap Singh and Indrajeet Singh (another person s/o Harnath Singh) for specific performance of contract to sell dated 14th of March, 1973 in respect of agriculture plots described at the foot of the plaint. The suit was instituted on the pleas inter alia that the defendant No. 1, Pratap Singh, agreed to sell agriculture plot Nos. 118,239 and 206 area 11.84 acres for a sum of Rs. 12,000/-out of which a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was given in cash on the date of the agreement and it was agreed that the remaining amount shall be paid to the vendors at the time of the registration of the sale deed. Period of six months was fixed to enable the vendor (defendant No. 1) to obtain the Bhumidhari Sanad. It was further pleaded that the defendant No. 1 was issueless. He is brother of plaintiff No. 1 Matadin. It was further stated that the defendant No. 2 a resident of different village, has started living, for the last 10-12 years with the defendant No. 1. The defendant No 2 is distantly related to the parties. Acommon relation of the parties namely Garib Das approached the plaintiff to permit the defendant No. 2 to reside in a portion of his house and the plaintiff No. 1 keeping in view the relationship, permitted the defendant No. 2 (Indrajeet and his Dai) to reside in a portion of the house of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 has sold away the disputed property to the defendant No. 2 on 25.4.1973 for a sum of Rs. 18,000/- after obtaining the Bhumidhari Sanad on the same date. The defendant No. 1 failed to execute the sale deed as they were required, the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell was filed.
(2.) THE suit was contested by defendants by filing a joint written statement. In the written statement the relationship of the defendant No. 1 with the plaintiffs was not disputed. It was pleaded that no such agreement as alleged by the plaintiffs was ever entered into by the defendant No. 1. The plea that Rs. 7,0007 -was received by him as advance on 14.3.1973 was denied. It was pleaded in para 7 of the written statement that the defendant No. 1 is a literate person and he used to sign the documents. As regards the defendant No. 2 it was pleaded that he is distantly related to defendant No. 1 and is living with him since a long time. The defendant No. 1 has no issue and he has sold away the disputed plots for a sum of Rs. 18,000/-on 25.4.1973 to defendant No. 2. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs after coming to know about the afore stated sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 2 forcibly took away the defendant No. 1 and obtained his thumb mark on blank papers on 9.7.1973. He was put under wrongful confinement and forced to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff No. 2 and another son of the plaintiff No. 1 under threat and and coercion. He was threatened, if the fact of the wrongful confinement, threat and coercion is disclosed to any third person his life would be in danger. Somehow, he ran away from the clutches of the plaintiff and gave an application on 10.10.1973 to the District Magistrate, Hamirpur narrating the entire events vide para 11 of the written statement. It has been further pleaded that he will take steps for cancellation of the alleged sale deed dated 9th of July, 1973 before a competent Court. The parties led evidence oral and documentary in support of their respective cases. The trial Court framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties: (1) Whether the defendant No. 1 had on 13.3.1973 agreed to sell the disputed property in favour of the plaintiffs? (2) Whether the defendant No. 1 had executed agreement deed dated 23.3.73 in favour of plaintiffs? If so, whether the said deed had been obtained by fraud and coercion as alleged in the W.S.? (3) Whether defendant No. 2 is bonafide purchaser for value without notice of the prior agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs? If so its effect? (4) To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled?
(3.) UNDER Issue Nos.1 and 2 the trial Court has found that the agreement Ex. 7 was executed in favour of Matadin Singh and his son Ram Singh (plaintiffs) by the defendant No. 1 and it has been further found that the said agreement is valid and was not obtained by fraud or coercion. Under Issue No. 3 it has been found that the defendant No. 2 had the notice of the prior agreement to sell at the time of the sale deed dated 25.4.1973. The defendant No. 2 is not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the prior agreement and as such is bound by the agreement dated 14th of March, 1973. Under Issue No. 4, the trial Court has found that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the sale deed executed in their favour on deposit of Rs.5,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement, the present appeal has been filed.;