TRIBUNAL OF CAIRO JUDGMENT ON APPEAL, 21 January 1899 MM. Ahmad Fathi Bey (Pres.); Amin Ali Effendi, Ahmad Talaat (J.J.). ABOUZED MOUSSA v. MUSTAHPA MUSTAPHA (C. C. Art. 611). Transcription—Real right not transcribed—Subsequent sale transcribed—Bad faith—Effect. A purchaser of immovable property, encumbered with a prior real right which has not been transcribed, who has acted in bad faith and in connivance with the fraud of his vendor, but has effected transcription of his contract, cannot rely on such transcription in order to obtain priority over the person in whose favour the real right was previously constituted, in spite of the omission of the latter to observe the formalities of transcription (1). (1) In one of the motives of the judgment above summarised the Court lays down, that the mere fact that the purchaser had notice of the existence, prior to the transcription of his contract, of an instrument not transcribed purporting to create a real right, is sufficient to debar such purchaser from relying on the non-transcription of such prior instrument. The case where a purchaser has such notice, without at the same time conniving at a fraud on his vendor's part, though rarely occurring would seem nevertheless to be possible (Dalloz Suppl. "Transcription hypothécaire" No. 177). It is to be noted that the French Courts, when dealing with these exceptional cases, appear to favour the view that notice of the prior contract does not of itself deprive the purchaser of the priority which he would otherwise acquire by transcription. (Cf. Dalloz loc. cit; Rép. "Transcription hypothécaire" No. 491 follg; "Dispositions entre vifs et testamentaires" No. 1570 follg; Suppl. "Privilèges et hypothèques" No. 957).