As per case facts, Plaintiff Kanchan G. Rohira filed a suit for specific performance of a flat sale agreement from 1977 with Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 subsequently sold the flat ... to Defendant No.3, who then sold it to Defendant No.4 Suresh Dhoot. The Plaintiff challenged the termination of her agreement as unlawful and the later sales as sham. The trial court denied specific performance but awarded damages, finding the Plaintiff ready and willing, the termination illegal, and the subsequent purchasers not bona fide. Both the Plaintiff and Defendant No.4 appealed the judgment. The core legal questions for the High Court were whether the Plaintiff was indeed ready and willing to fulfill her contract, the validity of the contract's termination, whether Defendant No.4 qualified as a bona fide purchaser without notice of the prior agreement, and if the trial court correctly used its discretion to deny specific performance while granting damages. Finally, the High Court upheld the trial court's findings that the Plaintiff was ready and willing and the termination notice was illegal. However, it reversed the finding that Defendant No.4 was not a bona fide purchaser, concluding that the Plaintiff failed to establish all conditions required for constructive notice under the Transfer of Property Act. The Court determined that Defendant No.4 was a transferee for value, acted in good faith, and lacked notice of the initial contract. Ultimately, the High Court affirmed the trial court's discretionary decision to deny specific performance, considering Defendant No.4's long-term possession of the flat since 1986, deeming it improper to order his eviction, and confirmed the alternative relief of damages.