Specific performance against subsequent purchasers succeeds where they fail to prove bona fide purchase for value without notice.

In a suit for specific performance, a subsequent transferee can resist enforcement only by proving that he purchased for value, in good faith and without notice of the prior contract under Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act. The burden of establishing that statutory exception lies on the transferee once the prior contract is shown. Here, the purchasers failed to prove payment of consideration or bona fide purchase without notice, and the plaintiff's possession required them to make proper inquiry. Specific performance was therefore enforceable against the subsequent purchasers.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a suit for specific performance, the subsequent transferees could resist enforcement by proving that they were transferees for value in good faith and without notice of the prior contract, and whether the burden of proving such exception lay on them.

Analysis: Under Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, specific performance may be enforced against persons claiming under the contract-holder, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract. The exception is therefore a matter for the transferee to establish. Once the prior contract was proved, the burden rested on the subsequent purchasers to prove value, good faith, and absence of notice. The evidence did not establish that they had paid the consideration or that they were bona fide purchasers without notice. As the plaintiff was in possession, the purchasers were also under a duty to make proper inquiry into the nature of that possession.

Conclusion: The subsequent purchasers failed to bring themselves within the statutory exception, and specific performance was rightly enforced against them.

---