sale deed on 08.01.1993 and delivered possession after which mutation has also been carried out. According to the appellant/defendant no. 2, the agreement, basing which the suit is filed, is a fabricated ante- dated document because defendant no. 1 did not disclose the factum of this agreement while executing the sale deed in his favour and thus, the appellant/defendant no. 2 is a bona fide purchaser.4 5. In the Trial Court plaintiff examined himself as PW-2, Deed Writer/ Kulwant Singh as PW-1, Jasjit Singh as PW-3 whereas defendants examined Kirpan Singh as DW 1, Shangara Singh as DW 2, B.M. Sehgal as DW 3 and Subhash Chander as DW 4. The Trial Court vide its judgment dated 27.04.2007 held that the plaintiff has proved the agreement to sell wherein defendant no. 2 has failed to prove that the agreement is a result of fraud and fabricated document. However, the Trial Court denied the decree for specific performance on the ground that since defendant no. 2 is the owner in possession of