As per case facts, the Plaintiff initiated a suit seeking specific performance of a flat sale agreement from January 1977 with Defendant No.1. During the proceedings, it came to light ... that Defendant No.1 had sold the flat to Defendant No.3, who further sold it to Defendant No.4. The Plaintiff contested the termination of her agreement and the subsequent transfers, arguing that Defendant No.4 was not a bona fide purchaser without notice. The trial court declined specific performance but awarded damages to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff appealed the denial of specific performance, while Defendant No.4 appealed the findings that the Plaintiff was ready and willing, the termination was illegal, and that he was not a bona fide purchaser. The question arose whether the Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance, necessitating a determination of her readiness and willingness, the validity of the agreement's termination, and critically, whether Defendant No.4 qualified as a bona fide transferee for value without notice of the prior registered agreement, which would impact the court's discretionary power under the Specific Relief Act. Finally, the High Court affirmed the trial court's conclusions that the Plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness and that the termination of her agreement was unlawful. However, it reversed the finding regarding Defendant No.4's bona fide status, holding that he did not have constructive notice of the Plaintiff's registered agreement because the Plaintiff failed to prove compliance with all three mandatory conditions for constructive notice under the Transfer of Property Act (specifically, proper entry in books and indexes). Considering Defendant No.4's continuous possession and payment of consideration, the court exercised its discretion under the Specific Relief Act in favor of Defendant No.4, denying specific performance but upholding the award of damages to the Plaintiff.