AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this case it is found that the 2nd defendant (appellant) received notice of the plaintiff''s contract, Exhibit A, after execution of his own sale-
deed (Exhibit II), but before its registration. No cash was to be paid under Exhibit II, but the sale-amount was to be adjusted towards a mortgage
(Exhibit V) held by the appellant. We are of opinion that the recital in Exhibit II does not operate as an adjustment so as to put the appellant in the
same position as a man who had paid his money in good faith"" within the meaning of Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act. In these circumstances
we should hold, following Himatlal Votilal v. Vasudeo Ganesh 16 Ind. Cas. 680 : 36 B. 446 : 14 Bom. L.R. 634, that the plaintiff was entitled to
claim specific performance as against the 2nd defendant.
The decision of the lower Appellate Court is right and the appeal is dismissed with costs; but the decree should be amended by directing that the
legal representatives of the 2nd defendant as well as the 1st defendant should execute a proper sale-deed to the plaintiff. This is ordered under
Order XLT, Rule 33, of the Code of Civil Procedure.