As per case facts, the first defendant agreed to sell agricultural land to the plaintiffs but subsequently sold it to other defendants. The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance, ... alleging the later sales were collusive. The defendants countered that the initial agreement was a sham or forged, never intended to be acted upon, and that the plaintiffs lacked readiness and willingness. One of the plaintiffs even sided with the defendants, questioning the validity and maintainability of the suit. The question arose whether the initial agreement was genuinely intended, whether subsequent purchasers were bona fide without notice, if cancelling the subsequent sale deeds was a prerequisite for specific performance, and if the relevant land reform act prohibited the sale to the plaintiffs. Finally, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, affirming the validity of the initial agreement and denying bona fide purchaser status to the subsequent transferees due to constructive notice. It clarified that a separate prayer for cancellation of subsequent sale deeds is not mandatory for a specific performance decree. The Court also held that while the land act may require permission for sale, the vendor has an implied duty to secure it. However, given one plaintiff’s lack of interest, specific performance was granted only for a one-half undivided share to the remaining plaintiff, contingent on obtaining government permission. If permission is denied, a refund with interest is ordered.