received on -26/08/2008 registered on 30/08/2008 decided on – 14 ...

20
Court Cases, 97( S C)”, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
in a civil suit all facts have to be pleaded and proved.
Learned Advocate Mr. G H Lahoti, appearing on behalf
of the plaintiff submitted that defendants claim that they are
bonafidfe purchasers for the value without notice. Therefore, burden
lies on them to prove the same. He has relied upon a case of
“Bhuru alias Bhura Ram Vs Sube Singh & ors, 2008(2) Civil Court
Cases 787 ( P & H)”, wherein it has been held that mere denial by
the transferee that he had no notice of the previous contract for sale
will not discharge the onus casted on him.
He has also relied upon a case of” R K.Mohammed
Ubaidullah and Ors Vs Hajee C Abdul Wahab ( D) by L Rs and
Ors., 2000(2) Apex Court Journal, 2999 ( S C )”, wherein it has
been held that onus of proof of good faith is on the purchaser who
takes the plea that he is an innocent purchaser.
He has also relied upon a case of, “ M M S
Investments, Madhurai and Ors Vs V V Veerappan and ors, 2007(2)
Apex Court Judgments 456 ( S C)”, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that plea of ready and willingness is not available to the
subsequent purchaser.
He has also relied upon a case of, “ Prakash Chandra
vs Angadlal and others, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1241”, wherein it
has been held that the ordinary rule is that specific performance
should be granted. It ought to be denied only when equitable
considerations point to its refusal and the circumstances show that
damages would constitute an adequate relief.
In a case of” Dilip Bastimal Jain Vs Baban Bhanudas
Kamble and others, 2001(3) Mh L J.730”, , Hon'ble High Court has