JUDGMENT

Richard Garth, C.J. and Beverley, J. - We think there is no ground for this appeal.

2. It is contended, that as this case does not come within Section 48 of the Registration Act (III of 1877), the Court has no right to enforce the agreement of the 20th of February 1881 as against the defendant. It is said that, although the agreement was prior to the purchase by the defendant, still as the agreement was not accompanied by possession, the title under the defendant's registered deed ought to prevail.

3. But this argument entirely ignores the doctrine of notice. It is clear law, both in England and in this country, that where a bond fide contract, whether oral or written, is made for the sale of property, and another party afterwards buys the property with notice of the contract, the title of the party claiming under the contract prevails against the subsequent purchaser, although his purchase may have been registered, and although he has obtained possession under his purchase.

4. This has been decided by Mitter and Maclean, JJ., in the case of Nemai Churn Dhalal v. Kokil Bag ILR 6 Cal. 535 : 7 C.L.R. 487 to which the provisions of Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act I of 1877