Sections 52, 41 and 53 Les Pendins, the unanimous exception of the acquittal and exemption obtained from the collateral, the counterfeit transfer scope The defendants claimed to have purchased the suit land from the vendor for sale on the date 1 1969. Filed a specific performance claim for the defendant and the seller, having reached an agreement, decided this decision by a decree of consent of 29 197 1972 The plaintiff (appellant) filed a claimant claiming that in fact he Purchased this suit land from the seller under the registered sale deed of 175 1971. The decision obtained by the defendant was collective and fraudulent and the defendant did not enforce them in his case. The trial court ruled by the trial court, which was previously upheld by the appellate court, However, the concurrent decisions of the courts below were reversed. The defendants were dismissed - on the grounds that the defendant was a good buyer for premature consideration. That the plaintiff purchased the suit land during the trial filed by the plaintiff and that the sale of the case with the plaintiffs fell under the principle of Les Penden listed in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. That was not the principle of Les Penden. In the present case this would apply because the suit and order obtained by the defendant was collectively valid. The suit was sold to the plaintiffs under the registered sale deed dated 1771 1971, and said that the transaction appears regularly in the Revenue and the possession of the suit land. Arrive the defendant on the spot by the Revenue Officer
