Section 27 (b) and 12 plaintiffs for specific performance of the contract, who purchased the suit land on the basis of the seller's contract, paid the amount and seized the seller of the suit land in violation of the terms of the seller's contract. Yes, the land was later sold to the seller and the claimant claimed that the sale was later declared illegal, illegal, invalid and ineffective, after which the case was dismissed by the plaintiff. The correctness of the court and the appellate court were to prove on the subsequent shopkeeper's record that after reasonable care he had no knowledge of good faith and premature sale and was entitled to protection under section 27 (b) of the Special Relief. Were entitled. The shopkeepers after the Act, 1877, failed to verify their efforts to prove the fact that in which capacity the plaintiff had the land the vendor's possession would make notice to the subsequent shopkeepers, First required careful investigation into the transaction, and the subsequent vendors were obliged to prove the record, in addition to paying vendors. That they acted in good faith. That they had no knowledge of the original contract / agreement and that they had taken proper care in two aspects afterwards the shopkeepers had to find out any previous agreement or to know that the land was properly all kinds. Free from the constraints of had no proper care. It was not enough about the fact that the shopkeepers later took proper care. Consequently, the shopkeepers did not have the right to seek protection of section 27 (b) of the Special Relief Act, 1877;
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
