9911796707
TMI Blog1929 (2) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sum of ₹ 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 ₹ 1,775 out of which ₹ 1,000 under the rehan and ₹ 600 under the promissory note and ₹ 50, taken as earnest money, were to be set off and the balance of ₹ 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 consideration of ₹ 1,810. The plaintiff's case i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract. 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 original contract. This view is supporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 9 : 40 C. 565 :18 C.W.N. 341, There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
