https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288858 In a suit for specific performance, the prior contract alone did not defeat a subsequent purchaser who denied notice of that agreement; once the transferee specifically pleaded and supported denial of knowledge, the burden shifted back to the plaintiff, and the finding of no notice was upheld on evidence. The suit also could not be defeated merely because some time had elapsed where it was filed within the limitation period under Article 54; delay short of limitation did not, by itself, amount to waiver or acquiescence. The dismissal of the suit was therefore sustained on the notice issue. en-us Tue, 14 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jul 2020 09:41:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288858 In a suit for specific performance, the prior contract alone did not defeat a subsequent purchaser who denied notice of that agreement; once the transferee specifically pleaded and supported denial of knowledge, the burden shifted back to the plaintiff, and the finding of no notice was upheld on evidence. The suit also could not be defeated merely because some time had elapsed where it was filed within the limitation period under Article 54; delay short of limitation did not, by itself, amount to waiver or acquiescence. The dismissal of the suit was therefore sustained on the notice issue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288858