2022 MLD 939
S.27 ---Subsequent purchaser, bona fide character of---Proof---Subsequent vendee had to discharge the initial onus: firstly, that he acquired property for due consideration and thus was a transferee for value; secondly, that there was no dishonesty of purpose or tainted intention to enter into the transaction which would settle that he acted in good faith/bona fide, thirdly, that he had no knowledge/notice of the original sale agreement between the plaintiff and vendor; fourthly, that he made some inquiries with the persons having knowledge of the property and also with the neighbours.
S.27 ---Suit for specific performance of agreement---Subsequent purchaser, bona fide status of---Knowledge of agreement---Onus of proof, discharge of---Essentials---Appellant allegedly approached few days prior to mutually extended date for payment of balance money, but one of the respondents refused to accept the same and disclosed that the suit property was sold out to third party---Said "third party" entered the suit by moving application under O.I, R.10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Third party asserted that he purchased the suit land vide four mutations (numbers given in written statement); that he was owner in possession of suit land; and that one of the defendants in collusion with appellant was trying to take possession after sale; and that real brother of one of the respondent filed suit for possession on basis of pre-emption against third party---Appellant's suit was concurrently dismissed---Validity---Appellant's agreement to sell and payment of earnest money was undisputed and concluded by both Courts below---Emerged on record through evidence that parties were residents of same vicinity and well known to one another---Agreement between appellant and one of the respondent must had been in knowledge of inhabitants of village---Nothing on record to show whether "third party" had made inquiry about existence of said agreement even in summary manner---Third party had not exhibited alleged four mutations in his favour to prove that same were sale mutations for value---Passing of consideration was also not proved on record---No confidence inspiring evidence germane to making of inquiry about original contract by third party was made as required by law/settled principles---Appeal was allowed and suit of appellant/plaintiff was decreed with direction to deposit remaining sale price within 30 days, otherwise the same would be deemed to have been dismissed.
S.27 ---Suit for specific performance of agreement---Bona fide purchaser---Proof---Inquiry as to title of property---Essentials---Where subsequent vendee conducted no inquiry regarding the title of property in question, he would not be deemed to have purchased property in question for value, in good faith and without notice of original contract.
0 Comments