AMIT RAWAL, J. - (1.) This order of mine shall dispose of three regular second appeal bearing Nos.3494 to 3496 of 2010. The appellants-plaintiffs are aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court whereby judgment and decree of the trial court granting the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, has been set aside.
(2.) Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kabir Sarin, Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the agreement to sell dated 29.09.1993 was entered into between defendants Nos.1 and 2 and plaintiff No.3, Ashwani Kumar Bansal. In the aforementioned agreement, Ashwani Kumar Bansal, plaintiff No.3, had entered into agreement to sell dated 29.09.1993 with defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of land measuring 71 kanals 13 marlas for a total consideration of L 26,88,875/- lacs against the payment of L 1 lac as earnest money. The stipulated date for execution and registration of the sale deed was 30.11.1993. The defendants sold the property vide sale deeds dated 31.03.1994 and 11.04.1994 and the defendants i.e. the subsequent vendees taken the plea of the bona fide purchasers in the written statement but the same was negated by the trial Court, for, they were residents of the same village and therefore, they had the knowledge of existence of the agreement to sell.
(3.) The trial court found that the appellants-plaintiffs had been ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and in exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the trial Court decreed the suit but the lower Appellate Court reversed the same allowing the appeal filed by the defendants, holding that the defendant Nos.3 to 8 were bona fide purchasers. The lower Appellate Court had assigned no reasons, much less, discussed the evidence while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in S. Sankaran v. D. Kausalya, JT 2007(4) SC 251 and Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi, (2008) 10 SCC 497.;