bonafide purchaser

'Buyer Beware' applies to property deals.

It shall be appropriate to get proper legal opinion from a very able LOCAL senior counsel of unshakable repute and integrity specializing in revenue/property/civil/DRT matters and well versed with LOCAL applicable rules/laws and having successful track record…. and worth his/her salt , before signing or making payment.

This may cost some FEE but can defend long term interest and hard earned monies.

Hope you have the documentary evidence of proper inquiry made by you.

Qui Prior Est Tempore, Potior Est Jure

Latin: ‘he who is earlier in time is stronger in law.’

https://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/Q/QuiPriorEstTemporePotiorEstJure.aspx

GO thru;

Central Government Act

The Transfer of Property Act, 1882; 41, 47,48,49,51

41. Transfer by ostensible owner.—Where, with the consent, express or implied, of the persons interested in immoveable property, a person is the ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for consideration, the transfer shall not be voidable on the ground that the transferor was not authorised to make it: provided that the transferee, after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer, has acted in good faith.

48. Priority of rights created by transfer.—Where a person purports to create by transfer at different times rights in or over the same immoveable property, and such rights cannot all exist or be exercised to their full extent together, each later created right shall, in the absence of a special contract or reservation binding the earlier transferees, be subject to the rights previously created.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/515323/

The transferor cannot prejudice the rights of the transferee by any subsequent dealing with the property.

And

GO thru;

Andhra High Court

The State Of Andhra Pradesh ... vs Rajah Ram Janardhana Krishna ... on 7 April, 1965

Equivalent citations: AIR 1966 AP 233, 1966 36 CompCas 950 AP

Author: Venkatesam

Bench: C Sastry, Venkatesam

That being so, the mortgage debenture holders are entitled to the priority and be paid in full before the Government are entitled to claim any portion of the sale proceeds in the hands of the official liquidator.

37. In the result all the contentions fall and the appeal is dismissed with costs of the contesting respondents one set. The costs shall he shared by the first respondent and the 3rd respondent in the proportion of 2:1.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1231468/

Supreme Court of India

Har Narain (D) By Lrs vs Mam Chand (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 8 October, 2010

Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan

17. In view of the above, we reach the inescapable conclusion that the sale executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 on 2.8.1971 could not be termed as a complete sale until the document got registered on 3.9.1971. In view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, 1908 the effect of registration would be that registration would relate back to the date of execution but it does not mean that sale would be complete in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 prior to 3.9.1971 i.e. the date of registration of the sale deed. In view of the above, as sale stood completed during the pendency of the suit, doctrine of lis pendens is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The courts below failed to appreciate that the fiction created by Section 47 of the Act 1908, itself is a consequence of 
 registration of the sale deed. More so, as the appellant had been in possession of the suit land being a mortgagee since 1970 and this fact had also been mentioned by the respondent No.1 in the sale deed dated 2.8.1971 in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 6, the question of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 being bonafide purchasers for value and paid money in good faith without notice does not arise, simply for the reason that the said respondents were fully aware that the suit land was in possession of the appellant. Thus, the respondents No.2 to 6 cannot take the benefit of the provisions of Section 19(b) of the Act, 1963.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1607832/

As per your post you have taken due precaution, made inquiry, and nothing was discovered during due diligence….inquiry………..

And probably the 1sy buyer was not in possession..

This may …..may favor you.

Since your money, title, possession is being threatened by case filed….. approach a very able LOCAL senior counsels of unshakable repute and integrity specializing in revenue/civil  matters  and well versed with latest citations, LOCAL applicable rules/laws/ revenue codes… and having successful track record…. and worth his/her salt…..and show the case related docs etc etc

Check at LOCAL courts for such counsels..

Approach your LOCAL counsel with everything that you have and contest the matter with full might.

Wish you the best.

Approach a very able senior counsel at your location or at jurisdictional HC...

You are welcome..