Report No. 157
3.16. Bona fide purchase not relevant.-
It is relevant in this behalf to point out, that in such a situation, the plea of "bona fide purchaser for value without notice" is not available to such a purchaser.1 Indeed, he is not even entitled to be compensated for improvements, if any made by him.2 It has been held that he is bound by any compromises entered into by his transferor, as also by the decree based upon such compromises.3 Absence of notice is immaterial.4
Such a situation not only gives room for mischief by unscrupulous parties to the suit (in which the property being sold by them is directly and specifically in question), but also results in grave loss and deprivation to the unwitting and bona fide purchasers of the property in dispute.
1. Balwinder fit Kafir v. Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, AIR 1987 P&H 189-190.
2. Hari Bachan v. Har Bhajan, AIR 1975 P&H 205 (210), para. 11.
3. Uttam CY Co. v. Balm Ram, (1982) All LJ 188 (191, 192), paras. 10-11.
4. Feuyaz Hussain Khan v. Prag Narain, ILR 29 All 1339 (PC); Rappel Aujushi v. Ramakrishna, AIR 1970 Ker 188.