agreement, he is not aware that there was an encumbrance, if at all, the appellant is a bonafide purchaser, before entering into an agreement for payment of advance amount of Rs.6,50,000/-, ought to have verified with the parent documents and should have verified with the original encumbrance, therefore, which clearly indicates that the appellant knowing fully well of the fact that there was an encumbrance, even prior to filing of the suit, he received notice from the third party and stating that he had paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondents and there was a Court proceedings, which clearly shows that in order to defeat the claim of the third party and bank, both appellants and respondents collusively entered into an agreement and subsequently, even in order to defeat the bank claim, they filed the suit. He is a bonafide purchaser without notice and appellant is ready to purchase the second item of the property, he is ready to discharge the loan and got the sale deed and he has not stated in the pleadings and the affidavit. Therefore, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that he is not entitled for the relief of specific performance. It is settled proposition of law that the relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief and a
