Back
SHIVARAJ V.PATIL, D.P.MOHAPATRA
R. K. Mohammed Ubaidullah – Appellant
Versus
Hajee C. Abdul Wahab – Respondent
What is the onus of proof on a purchaser claiming to be a bona fide purchaser without notice of a prior contract? What is the significance of a person being in actual possession of immovable property regarding notice of their title to subsequent purchasers? What are the circumstances that can lead to a court inferring that a subsequent purchaser had notice of a prior agreement?
Key Points: - The onus of proof of good faith lies on the purchaser who claims to be an innocent purchaser (!) . - Actual possession of immovable property is deemed constructive notice of the title of the person in possession to any person acquiring an interest in that property (!) (!) . - A subsequent purchaser is required to make inquiries about the title or interest of the person in actual possession at the time of the sale transaction (!) (!) . - Being neighbors in business and residential localities can be a circumstance leading to the inference that subsequent purchasers had notice of a prior agreement (!) (!) . - Wilful abstention from inquiry or gross negligence in investigating the nature of possession can lead to constructive notice for a subsequent purchaser (!) (!) . - The protection afforded to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice is an exception to the general rule regarding specific performance (!) . - The trial court and High Court found that the defendants were not bona fide purchasers in good faith for value without notice of the original contract (!) (!) . - The appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower courts (!) . - The plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as a tenant for about 20 years prior to the suit [1000046690007]. - The defendants 2 to 5 purchased the property despite the plaintiff's prior agreement and possession [1000046690007].
JUDGMENT
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-The unsuccessful Defendants 2 to 5 in both the courts below in a suit for specific performance are the appellants herein. Hereinafter the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the original suit No. 241/71. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of this appeal are : The Plaintiff filed the original suit in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vellore for specific performance of the contract and other reliefs. According to the plaintiff, the suit scheduled property belonged to the defendant No. 1. He is carrying on business in hardware in the premises Door No 39, Long Bazar, Vellore, the property belonging to the brother of the first defendant. He is in exclusive occupation and possession of the suit property Door No. 36 as a tenant of the first defendant from about 1962 on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 using it as godown for his business purpose. The Defendants 2-4 and the husband of the 5th defendant are also hardware merchants carrying on similar business in adjoining shop Door No. 38. The first defendant intended to sell the suit property and intimated the plaintiff about the same and requested him to permit intending purchasers and brok
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
