No.1 in his favour for sale of the suit land. The execution of such agreement to sell and the receipt of Rs.50,000/- towards earnest money has been admitted by defendant No.1 himself. On the other hand, the vendeedefendants No.2 and 3 have relied upon an agreement to sell dated 3.2.2000 pertaining to the suit land and in pursuance to which, the sale-deed was executed on 4.7.2000. The sale-deed, Exhibit D1, has been held to be duly proved in accordance with law. It has been noticed by the Courts below that in Exhibit D3 i.e. the agreement to sell, the total sale-consideration was mentioned as Rs.95,000/- and the same figure has been reflected in the saledeed, Exhibit D1. The contention of the appellant to the effect that in the written statement, a stand has been taken as regards Rs.47,500/- having been paid towards earnest money, whereas in the agreement, Exhibit D3, the amount of Rs.95,000/- having been shown to be paid on 3.2.2000, would not carry any weight. Iqbal Singh, defendant No.1-vendor of sale-deed, Exhibit D1, has never challenged the sale-deed for want of consideration. The sale-deed, Exhibit D3, which stands duly proved by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 is much prior to the last date for execution of the sale-deed stipulated in the agreement, Exhibit P1, in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. No evidence has been forthcoming as regards defendants No.2 and 3 having had notice of the agreement dated 23.6.2000, Exhibit P1, entered into by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiffappellant. Defendants No.2 and 3, accordingly, have been held to be bonafide purchasers of the suit land.
