Registered conveyance and bona fide purchase without notice protect a subsequent transferee from prior specific performance claims.

A registered conveyance takes effect from the date of execution under Section 47 of the Registration Act, so a subsequent purchaser may still obtain protected title if he bought for value in good faith and without notice of the earlier contract. On the facts, the purchaser's knowledge of the plaintiff's limited tenancy in one room did not create notice of an unconnected agreement to sell other rooms, and specific performance was therefore unavailable against him. The agreement to sell was also upheld as genuine because the evidence supported proper execution, and no plea was raised that it had not been read over or explained to the alleged pardanashin executant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the subsequent purchaser's title, arising under a registered sale deed whose registration was completed after the suit was instituted, prevented specific performance of the earlier contract against him. (ii) Whether the agreement to sell was invalid for want of proof of proper execution and explanation to an illiterate pardanashin executant.

Issue (i): Whether the subsequent purchaser's title, arising under a registered sale deed whose registration was completed after the suit was instituted, prevented specific performance of the earlier contract against him.

Analysis: The operative date of a registered document relates back to the date of execution under Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act, even though completion of registration takes place later. The subsequent purchaser therefore derived title from the date of execution, which was prior to the institution of the suit. On the facts, he had paid consideration in good faith and without notice of the prior contract. The plaintiff's possession was only as a tenant of one room, was known to the purchaser, and did not create a duty to enquire into an unconnected contract to purchase other rooms. The purchaser thus fell within the protection given to a transferee for value who acts in good faith and without notice.

Conclusion: Specific performance could not be enforced against the subsequent purchaser; this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the agreement to sell was invalid for want of proof of proper execution and explanation to an illiterate pardanashin executant.

Analysis: The appellate court had found the agreement genuine on a careful appraisal of the evidence. No plea had been taken in the written statement or evidence that the document was not read over or explained to the executant or that she did not understand it. The trial court's observation about her being a pardanashin lady did not by itself displace the appellate finding on execution and genuineness.

Conclusion: The agreement was held genuine; this issue was decided against the respondent on the cross-objection.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance against the subsequent purchaser, and the finding upholding the genuineness of the agreement was maintained; the appeal and cross-objection both failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent transferee who derives title from the date of execution of the registered conveyance, pays valuable consideration in good faith, and has no notice of the prior contract is protected against specific performance under the statutory exception for transferees without notice.

---