https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288857 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. en-us Mon, 18 Dec 1933 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jul 2020 09:35:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288857 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Dec 1933 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288857