Transferees of registered land were unaware of any facts to suggest irregularity or impropriety in the exercise of the power of sale,

Injunctions – injunction sought restraining purchasers from taking possession, trespassing/interfering with the property - injunction seeks to restrain the purchasers from exercising the rights which would normally be enjoyed as owners of the property – plaintiff obtained a mortgage with charge over the property – went into arrears – receiver appointed – claims that the receiver unlawfully entered into possession of the premises – receiver attempted to sell the property – no power of sale - by the time he applied for the injunction, the sale had been completed - by deed of transfer made Everyday, as transferor and registered owner of the Charge which is registered as a burden on the Folio, transferred the Property to the Purchasers - Transfer has been lodged with the PRAI for registration – the hearing - legal position of the Purchasers - position of the Plaintiff and Everyday pursuant to the Charge - fact that the receiver had no power of sale - provided Everyday had itself the power to execute the Transfer, there is no reason why that Transfer would be in any way invalidated or impugned by the absence of any power or authority on the part of the Receiver to enter into the contract - no serious question to be tried on this point - defects in the appointment of the Receiver - satisfied for the purposes of this interlocutory application that the Receiver had no power to execute that contract and that the Purchasers could not rely on it as evidence of their beneficial ownership - nothing to prevent a contract, even though it will generally transfer the entire beneficial interest to the purchaser, from being concluded on the basis of a written document which is not under seal (as occurred here) or indeed orally (subject to the requirements of s. 51 of evidence of an oral agreement should either party seek to enforce it) - no challenge to the execution of the instrument of appointment or the authority of Everyday’s attorney to execute it. - whether the sale was an abuse of process - the continued adjournment of possession proceedings brought by its predecessor-in-title does not prevent Everyday from selling without vacant possession and the sale was not an abuse of process - Whether the Purchasers are on constructive notice of the plaintiff’s claim - whether the Purchasers were aware prior to closing of the plaintiff’s claim - whether the Purchasers were obliged to inquire further - in the absence of knowledge of facts which suggest irregularity or impropriety in the exercise of the power of sale, a purchaser is not bound to make any inquiries into whether the conditions for exercise had been satisfied - whether the purchasers had actual notice of fraud or whether they closed their eyes to suspicious circumstances - sitting tenants - re-entry of the Property - alleged sale at an undervalue - plaintiff has not established a serious question to be tried in this case - balance of justice favours a refusal of the relief.