Prior agreement for sale defeated bona fide purchaser defence; specific performance succeeded against the subsequent buyer.

The agreement for sale was held to be true, valid, supported by consideration and enforceable by specific performance. The burden lay on the party resisting the prior contract to prove that the fifth defendant was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, but the evidence showed he was informed of the agreement soon after execution and the registration record recorded an objection based on the subsisting contract. He therefore could not claim the protection available to a purchaser without notice, and the plaintiff's suit for specific performance succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the fifth defendant established that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the prior agreement for sale, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance.

Analysis: The agreement for sale was found to be true, valid, supported by consideration, and capable of specific performance. The burden lay on the party seeking to defeat the prior contract to prove bona fide purchase for value without notice. The evidence accepted by both courts showed that the fifth defendant was informed of the contract soon after its execution. The registration record also showed that objection was raised on the ground of a subsisting contract in the plaintiff's favour. On these findings, the fifth defendant could not claim the protection of a purchaser without notice.

Conclusion: The fifth defendant failed to establish bona fide purchase for value without notice, and the plaintiff's suit for specific performance succeeded.

---