Specific performance and lis pendens: later transferee could not defeat the plaintiff's contractual claim.

In a specific performance dispute, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness were upheld because the pleadings did not effectively deny her assertions and the evidence did not show any failure on her part. The subsequent purchaser was treated as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice on the material before the court, but that defence could not prevail because a transfer made after the suit was filed was subject to lis pendens. The later sale therefore bound the transferee, the dismissal of the suit was set aside, and specific performance was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract for specific performance; (ii) Whether the subsequent purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the prior agreement; (iii) Whether the subsequent sale was hit by the rule of lis pendens so as to bind the transferee.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract for specific performance.

Analysis: The pleadings did not contain any effective denial of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness. The written statements did not specifically traverse the averments that she had been and continued to be ready to complete the sale. The defendants' oral evidence also did not establish any lack of readiness on her part. On the pleadings and evidence, the objection on this score could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the prior agreement.

Analysis: The subsequent purchaser was required to show at least a prima facie absence of notice. Mere proximity of the property to his own shop was insufficient, and the material relied on did not prove notice of the prior agreement. The evidentiary burden shifted, but the plaintiff did not establish that the purchaser had notice of the earlier contract.

Conclusion: The subsequent purchaser was held to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

Issue (iii): Whether the subsequent sale was hit by the rule of lis pendens so as to bind the transferee.

Analysis: The rule of lis pendens applies to suits for specific performance of contracts to transfer immovable property. A transfer made during the pendency of such a suit is subject to the result of the litigation, and the transferee cannot defeat the plaintiff's claim by relying solely on want of notice or good faith. The later sale having been executed after the suit was filed, it was within the mischief of the rule.

Conclusion: The subsequent sale was hit by lis pendens.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff became entitled to specific performance, the dismissal of the suit was set aside, and a decree for conveyance was granted in her favour.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for specific performance, once the plaintiff establishes readiness and willingness, a transferee pendente lite cannot defeat the claim by asserting bona fide purchase without notice, because the doctrine of lis pendens governs the transfer.

---