In Brief
The Supreme Court affirmed a High Court judgment that allowed the original plaintiff's suit for specific performance of an oral sale agreement from 1986. The subsequent purchasers (appellants) challenged this, claiming protection as bona fide purchasers under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act. The Court held that good faith protection requires not mere honesty but due care and attention. Since the subsequent purchasers failed to inquire about the existing mortgagee's interest in the property—despite knowing of encumbrances—they had constructive notice. Their willful abstention from making inquiries amounted to reckless disregard of consequences, negating bona fide purchaser status. The appeal was dismissed and the original decree for specific performance was upheld.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.