Joint family sale agreement and good-faith purchaser exception under specific performance failed for lack of proof of notice and value.

An agreement for sale referring to a proprietary share and reciting legal necessity was construed as covering the entire joint family interest, not merely the executant's personal share. Under Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, a subsequent transferee can resist specific performance only by affirmatively proving purchase for value, in good faith, and without notice of the prior contract. The transferee failed to prove payment of consideration and absence of notice, so the prior contractual rights remained enforceable by specific performance, and the appellant's relief was upheld in substance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agreement for sale dated 26 November 1926 affected the joint family interest in the property or only the individual interest of the executant; (ii) whether the subsequent transferee brought himself within the exception in Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 by proving payment of consideration in good faith and without notice of the prior contract.

Issue (i): Whether the agreement for sale dated 26 November 1926 affected the joint family interest in the property or only the individual interest of the executant.

Analysis: The language of the agreement referred to the proprietary share itself and stated that it was to be sold to meet legal necessities. On its true construction, the subject of sale was the entire share described in the document, not merely the personal interest of the executant. The share was joint family property, and the agreed price indicated a contract for the whole interest.

Conclusion: The agreement affected the joint family interest in the property.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent transferee brought himself within the exception in Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 by proving payment of consideration in good faith and without notice of the prior contract.

Analysis: Section 27(b) permits specific performance against a subsequent transferee unless he proves that he purchased for value, in good faith, and without notice of the original contract. The exception was treated as one to be established by the transferee, with support from the structure of the section and the evidentiary principles in Sections 103 and 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The evidence did not satisfactorily prove payment of the cash consideration or absence of notice.

Conclusion: The subsequent transferee failed to establish the statutory exception, and the appellant was entitled to specific performance.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the High Court was set aside and the decree of the Subordinate Judge restoring specific relief to the appellant was affirmed in substance, with costs awarded to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, a subsequent transferee must affirmatively prove that he purchased for value in good faith and without notice in order to defeat prior contractual rights enforceable by specific performance.

---