suit for specific performance for the remaining land after deducting the land purchased by Bonafide purchaser = we have gone through the entire record and are satisfied that the purchase by respondent no.2 was completely bona fide . The agreement dated 31.07.1998 was an unregistered one and the plaintiff himself had not initiated any action for more than five years. There is nothing on record to indicate that any public notice was given or that defendant no.2 was aware of the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. The price paid by the defendant no.2 in respect of the extent of 8 Kanals can also not be said to be inadequate or in any way at a lesser rate. The record also discloses that defendant no.2 was a mortgagee in whose favour a registered deed was executed by defendant no.1. All these facets taken together completely prove that defendant no.2 was a bona fide purchaser for value and, as such, the assessment made by the Appellate Court was absolutely correct and justified. The High Court, therefore, was right in dismissing the second appeal preferred by the appellant herein. That leaves us with the question - whether the appellant would be entitled to the rest of the land and at what price? If we go by the agreement dated 31.07.1998, the appellant had made over 4/5 th of the consideration and if the extent of 8 Kanals of land is left out, what the appellant would now be entitled to is the extent of 14 Kanals 17 Marlas, which is less than the 2/3rd of the land. Though served, the defendant no.1 has chosen not to appear in the matter and thus we have not had the benefit of hearing him on this issue. However, considering the fact that 4/5 th consideration was actually paid way back in 1998, that consideration should be sufficient for the extent of land which will now be 2/3rd of the land. We, therefore, order accordingly and direct that the suit for specific performance stands decreed in respect of the extent of 14 Kanals 17 Marlas at the price of Rs.2,00,000/- as stated above.

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7010 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP  (Civil) No.13528/2019
SATBIR                                             Appellant
                                VERSUS
INDER SINGH & ANR.                                 Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The   appellant/plaintiff   filed   Civil   Suit   No.RBT-697   of   2003
seeking   specific   performance   of   an   agreement   dated   31.07.1998   by
which   the   first   defendant   (respondent   no.2   herein)   had   agreed   to
transfer   22   Kanals   17   Marlas   of   land   to   the   appellant.     Under   the
agreement,   the   agreed   sale   consideration   was   Rs.2,50,000/-.   The
agreement   was   printed   on   a   stamp   paper   of   Rs.10/-   but   was   not
registered.     On   that   day   the   appellant   had   paid   Rs.2,00,000/-   by
way   of   earnest.     The   suit   was   however   filed   on   21.08.2003,   nearly
five years after the agreement.
It   is   relevant   to   note   that   from   and   out   of   the   aforesaid   22
Kanals   17   Marlas   of   land,   an   extent   of   8   Kanals   of   land   was   sold
away by the first defendant in favour of defendant no.2 (respondent
no.1   herein)   vide   transaction   dated   01.07.2003.     The   Deed   of
Conveyance recorded the consideration to be Rs.1,60,000/-   for the
extent   of   8   Kanals   of   land.     The   suit   was   filed   after   this
transaction.

2
In the suit, it was submitted that the first defendant had no
authority   to   sell   the   extent   of   8   Kanals   and   that   the   second
defendant   would   also   be   bound   by   the   decree   of   specific
performance.   The suit came to be decreed by the Trial Court which
granted   the   decree   of   specific   performance   in   favour   of   the
appellant in respect of the entire land of 22 Kanals 17 Marlas.
In the appeal preferred by the second defendant, the Appellate
Court concluded that the second defendant was a  bona fide  purchaser
for   value   without   notice   and,   as   such,   the   relief   of   specific
performance   could   not   be   granted   as   against   him.   The   Appellate
Court, therefore, modified the decree passed by the Trial Court and
excluded   the   extent   of   8   Kanals   of   land   and   confirmed   the   decree
only   to   the   extent   of   remainder   portion   of   the   land,   that   is   to
say, 14 Kanals and 17 Marlas.
In   the   second   appeal   preferred   by   the   appellant,   the
substantial   questions   of   law   were   framed   by   the   High   Court   vide
order dated 15.01.2015 and the matter was taken up for hearing.  By
Order   dated   18.03.2019,   the   Second   Appeal   No.3324   of   2010   was
dismissed   by   the   High   Court,   which   order   is   presently   under
challenge.
We   have   heard   Mr.   Mahabir   Singh,   learned   senior   counsel   for
the   appellant   and   Mr.   Manoj   Swarup,   learned   senior   counsel   for
respondent no.1.

3
Mr.   Mahabir   Singh,   learned   senior   counsel   submitted   that   the
discussion   in   the   impugned   judgment   had   proceeded   on   points   which
were   completely   different   from   the   questions   of   law   framed   by   the
High   Court.     According   to   him,   the   High   Court   ought   to   have
concentrated   on   the   issue   whether   the   purchase   by   respondent   no.2
was  bona fide  or not.
With   the   assistance   of   the   learned   counsel,   we   have   gone
through   the   entire   record   and   are   satisfied   that   the   purchase   by
respondent   no.2   was   completely   bona   fide .     The   agreement   dated
31.07.1998   was   an   unregistered   one   and   the   plaintiff   himself   had
not   initiated   any   action   for   more   than   five   years.     There   is
nothing   on   record   to   indicate   that   any   public   notice   was   given   or
that   defendant   no.2   was   aware   of   the   agreement   between   the
plaintiff and defendant no.1.  The price paid by the defendant no.2
in   respect   of   the   extent   of   8   Kanals   can   also   not   be   said   to   be
inadequate   or   in   any   way   at   a   lesser   rate.     The   record   also
discloses   that   defendant   no.2   was   a   mortgagee   in   whose   favour   a
registered   deed   was   executed   by   defendant   no.1.     All   these   facets
taken together completely prove that defendant no.2 was a  bona fide
purchaser   for   value   and,   as   such,   the   assessment   made   by   the
Appellate Court was absolutely correct and justified.
The High  Court, therefore,  was right  in dismissing  the second
appeal preferred by the appellant herein.
That leaves us with the question - whether the appellant would
be entitled to the rest of the land and at what price?

4
If we go by the agreement dated 31.07.1998, the appellant had
made   over   4/5 th
  of   the   consideration   and   if   the   extent   of   8   Kanals
of land is left out, what the appellant would now be entitled to is
the extent of 14 Kanals 17 Marlas, which is less than the 2/3rd of
the land.
Though served, the defendant no.1 has chosen not to appear in
the   matter   and   thus   we   have   not   had   the   benefit   of   hearing   him   on
this issue.   However, considering the fact that 4/5 th
  consideration
was   actually   paid   way   back   in   1998,   that   consideration   should   be
sufficient   for   the   extent   of   land   which   will   now   be   2/3rd   of   the
land.
We, therefore,  order accordingly  and direct  that the  suit for
specific performance stands decreed in respect of the extent of 14
Kanals 17 Marlas at the price of Rs.2,00,000/- as stated above. 
With   the   aforesaid   observations,   the   appeal   stands   disposed
of.  No costs.
.................................J.
            [UDAY UMESH LALIT]
.................................J.
      [VINEET SARAN]   
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 4, 2019

5
ITEM NO.71               COURT NO.7               SECTION IV-B
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13528/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-03-2019
in RSA No.3324/2010 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At
Chandigarh)
SATBIR                                             Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
INDER SINGH & ANR.                                 Respondent(s)

Date : 04-09-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
For Petitioner(s)  Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, AOR
                    Mr. Aditya Dahiya, Adv.
For Respondent(s)  Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Adv.
Mr. Neelmani Pant, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR
                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of, in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
   (MUKESH NASA)                              (SUMAN JAIN)
      COURT MASTER                              BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the File)