- (1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as plaintiff-respondents. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2009 passed by Additional District Judge F.T.C., Darbhanga in TA.No. 05/97 affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.1.1996 passed by Munsif I, Darbhanga in T.S.No. 104/89.
(2.) The defendant is the appellant in this appeal which has arisen out of a suit for specific performance of contract filed by the plaintiff for enforcing the agreement for sale dated 25.08.1986 executed by the defendantno.1 in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit property described in Schedule I of the plaint and for further declaration that the sale deeds dated 29.08.1989 in favour of the defendant 2nd Set by the defendant no.1 is not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also made prayer for recovery of possession in case he is found not in possession over the suit property. The defendants have resisted the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the agreement for sale (Mahadnama) propounded by the plaintiff is not valid and genuine document and further that the sale deeds for the suit property in favour of the defendant 2nd Set have been executed on the basis of an earlier agreement for sale dated 12.02.1985 and the purchasers have been put in possession over the suit property. The defendants 2nd Set (subsequent purchasers) by filing their separate written statement, inter alia, has also asserted that they are bona fide purchasers of the entire suit land for value and without any notice of the agreement for sale(Mahadnama) dated 25.08.1986 of the plaintiff.
(3.) The specific issue regarding the validity of the Mahadnama dated 25.08.1986 of the plaintiff and Mahadnama dated 12.02.1985 of the Defendants 2nd Set have been framed in the suit and both the courts below after analysing the evidence on record and rival pleadings of the parties have reached to the concurrent finding that the Mahadnama dated 25.08.1986 of the plaintiff is a valid and legally enforceable document and the Mahadnama dated 12.02.1985 relied upon by the defendants is an ante dated document fabricated for the purpose to defeat the claim of the plaintiff. On consideration of the evidence on record it has also been found by both the courts that the Defendants 2nd Set (subsequent purchasers) had the notice of the Mahadnama standing in favour of the plaintiff and the Defendants 2nd Set are not bona fide purchasers for value of the suit land. In view of the aforesaid findings of fact the suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed and the appeal by the Defendants 1 st Set (vendor) and the cross objection filed by the Defendants 2nd Set (subsequent purchasers) have been dismissed. This second appeal has been filed by the Defendants 1st Set (vendors) alone and no appeal has been filed by the subsequent purchasers who were Defendants 2nd Set in the suit.;