JUDGMENT
Spankie, J.
1. We think that the lower Appellate Court has too readily assumed that, because the auction-purchaser was no party to the contract to sell to plaintiff, the suit is bad for misjoinder. It is part of the plaintiff’s case that the auction-purchaser at the time of his purchase was aware of the original contract in favour of the plaintiff, and that ho and the defendant Ram Charan were acting in collusion and to the injury of the plaintiff. Under Clause (b), Section 27,* Act I of 1877, a contract may he enforced against any party to it or any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract. The claim therefore is not necessarily bad for the reason assigned by the lower Courts. The defendants who were parties to the original contracts in the cases before us may be said to have admitted them, as Ram Charan did not defend the suit against him, and Ram Padarath in the other suit acknowledged the justice of the claim. It is true that the auction-purchaser contends that these defendants are in collusion with the plaintiff to injure him.
2. The Court would have to determine first whether or not there was any agreement enforceable by law between the contracting parties, and, if so, was the contract one specifically enforceable by law as being one for which compensation in money would be no adequate relief. If the lower Appellate Court found that the contract was one specifically enforceable, it would have to determine whether or not it was a contract entered into at the time it professes to have been made in good faith between the compacting parties, or, as alleged by the auction-purchaser, the transaction was not made bona fide and was prepared in fraud of himself. If the lower Court found that there was a genuine contract of sale, the Court would then have to determine whether or not the auction-purchaser at the time of his purchase was aware of the original contract.
3. With this view of the case we annul the finding of the lower Appellate Court, and remand the case, under Section 851 of Act VII1 of 1850, with directions that it may be restored to its original number on the file, and he tried on its merits by the lower Appellate Court. Costs will abide the result.
——————————————Foot Note——————————-
*[Relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title.
Section 27: Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter specific performance of a contract may be enforced against-
* * * * (b) any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract.]
