1929 (2) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....session. The plaintiff then alleges that the defendant No. 1 took a further sum of Rs. 600 from him on the 28th August, 1925, on the basis of a promissory note and there was a promise by the defendant No. 1 to sell the land to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,775 out of which Rs. 1,000 under the rehan and Rs. 600 under the promissory note and Rs. 50, taken as earnest money, were to be set off and the balance of Rs. 125 was to be paid in cash. An agreement called mahadanama was accordingly executed by the defendant No. 1 on the 23rd September, 1925, in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1, however, subsequently sold the lands to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 by means of a deed of conveyance dated the 12th October, 1925, for the alleged consider....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Nos. 2 and A had knowledge of the contract. The answer to this argument is contained in the provision of Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act which provides that a specific performance of contract may be enforced against (a) either party thereto; (b) any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract. It is thus clear that the party who wants to take advantage of the exception has to prove it. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to prove in the first instance that they were transferees for value and that they had paid their money in good faith and without notice of the or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ith and without notice of the original contract, who can avoid the specific performance of a contract. The finding here is that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are not purchasers in good faith. 6. Mr. Shiveshwar Dayal takes an additional points which does not appear to have been taken in the Court below, namely, that the plaintiff being admittedly in possession it was the bounden duty of the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to inquire from the plaintiff as regards the nature of his possession before hey could be held to be bona fide purchasers or value, and reference is made to Faki Ibrahim v. Faki Gulam Mohidin 60 Ind. Cas. 986 : 45 B. 910 : 23 B. L.R. 335 and also to observations of Jenkins, C.J., in Baburam Bag v. Madhab Chandra Pallay 19 Ind. Cas....