The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a claim for damages due to want of title to the vendor, the plaintiff must plead and prove the loss of title to the vehicle in order to be successful in the claim.

RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff. Suit was for damages. According to the plaintiff, defendant sold an Ambassador Car DHB 8043 to the plaintiff on 6-8-1972 for a sum of Rs. 13,750/-. He purchased the car in good faith, though defendant had not transferred the registration in the name of the plaintiff. Plaintiff was made to believe that defendant had the right to sell the car. While the car was in possession of the plaintiff it was seized by the Delhi Police on 25-9-1972 to be produced before the Court of JM TIS Hassari, Delhi in Crime No. 181 of 1972 charged against one Nazir Ahammed on the ground that the car was a stolen property. According to the plaintiff, the car was seized from Muvattupuzha in the presence of the defendant and due to seizure plaintiff sustained damages as a result of the breach of warranties and conditions relating to the sale. Plaintiff lost the car as well as its quite enjoyment. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had no title over the car so as to pass on the plaintiff at the time of sale, thereby plaintiff was disabled from making any claim of ownership over the car in the criminal proceedings or in any Court. Plaintiff therefore could only file suit for damages against defendant.

2. Defendant denied the sale of the car. It is also his case that he has not accepted any consideration from the plaintiff. According to him it is his mother-in-law who purchased the car sold to one Damodaran Pillai who sold it to the plaintiff. The suit was initially decreed on 28-9-1976 by the trial Court for an amount of Rs. 13,750/- with 6% interest from the date of suit. Matter was taken up in appeal before this Court vide A.S. No. 92 of 1977. A Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 23-2-1982 remanded the matter back to the trial Court to enable the plaintiff to amend the pleading that the car was lost due to want of title to the vendor. Plaintiff amended the plaint and case was subsequently heard and the Sub Court again decreed the suit on 18-11-1982 for an amount of Rs. 13,750/- with 6% interest from the defendant. Defendant filed appeal A.S. 100 of 1983 before this Court. This Court allowed the appeal on 29-3-1990 setting aside the judgment of the lower Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree this appeal has been preferred.

3. Counsel for the appellant plaintiff Sri M.C. Sen referred to the oral evidence of plaintiff, PW 10 who deposed in support of his pleadings in the plaint. Plaintiff deposed that he believed the defendant because of his official capacity as the Motor Vehicle Inspector at Muvattupuzha. He entrusted the defendant the blank form and the registration book for the purpose of transferring the registration in his name. According to him on 25-9-1972 the Delhi Police came to Muvattupuzha and seized the car. Ext. A5 is the seizure memo dated 25-9-1972 given by the Delhi Police. PW-4 is the S.I. of Police, Angamali who was also present. He deposed that the Inspector, Crime Branch, Delhi who came to seize the car told him that it was the defendant who purchased the car from Delhi. Later Inspector from Delhi and PW-4 together went to see the defendant. All these factors would indicate involvement of the defendant, according to the counsel for the appellant-plaintiff.

4. Counsel also placed reliance on S. 14 of the sale of Goods Act and contended in a contract of sale unless the circumstances of the contract are such as to show a different intention there is an implied condition on the part of the seller that, in the case of a sale he has a right to sell the goods and that, in the case of an agreement to sell, he will have a right to sell the good at the time when the property is to pass. There is also an implied warranty that the buyer shall have and enjoy quite possession of the goods and that the goods shall be free any charge or encumbrance in favour of any third party not declared or known to the buyer before or at the time when the contract is m