The main legal point established in the judgment is that the indemnity clause in the sale deed covered the liability to compensate for the consequent loss, but only in the event of the vendee sustaining any actual loss and not in any other contingency.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for compensation for the loss alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff as a consequence of the fraudulent misrepresentation made by the defendant for inducing him to accept the sale deed Ext. D dated 19.10.1123. Under this document, the A schedule property was conveyed to the plaintiff by defendants 1 to 4 for a consideration of I. Rs. 12771 Chuckrums 26 cash 8 (S. Rs. 13,000). The property thus conveyed was specified as lying within the well defined boundaries mentioned in the document. The extent of the property also was given as 12 acres and 81 cents. A special indemnity clause was also inserted in the sale deed and it was to the effect that if the property is seen to be subject to any prior encumbrance, the same would be cleared by the vendors themselves and in case of their failure to do so, the vendee will be entitled to recover the consequent loss that may be sustained by the vendee from the 1st defendant and also as a charge on the B schedule property. It transpired later on that 64 cents comprised in Sy. No.1011/3D and 1 acre 86 cents comprised in Sy. No. 1011/2 forming portions of the property covered by the sale deed Ext. D, had already been dealt with under a usufructuary mortgage and lease back. On the strength of the lease, the mortgagee sued and obtained the decree in O.S. No. 88/1124 of the Muvattupuzha District Munsiff's Court for recovery of the rest due to him. In execution of that decree, the court appointed a receiver to take possession of the aforesaid items and the receiver actually took possession of the same on 25.9.1950. Because of these developments, the plaintiff prayed for a decree compelling the defendants to pay off the pre-existing liabilities on the two items mentioned above, and to secure possession of these items for the plaintiff. In the alternative a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2500/- as the value of these items was also claimed by the plaintiff. These matters are covered by issues 8,10 and 13 in the case. At the time of the final arguments the parties appear to have agreed that the question covered by these issues can be disposed of only after the termination of the execution proceedings in O.S. No. 88 of 1124. It is so stated in Para.7 of the lower court's judgment and on the basis of the agreement between the parties, the questions covered by these issues have been left open to be decided in a separate suit. Those questions do not therefore arise for consideration in the present appeal.

2. The main question that is agitated in the appeal relates to the plaintiff's claim based on his complaint that there has been a deficiency in the extent of the property represented to be conveyed under Ext. D. According to the plaintiff the fact that there is such a deficiency came to his notice only when he got the property measured in Medom 1125 i.e., nearly two years subsequent to the date of the sale deed. It is contended that the sale evidenced by Ext. D was negotiated on the basis of the extent of the property as represented by the defendants and that the price was calculated and fixed at Rs. 10/- per cent and that out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 12,810/- a sum of Rs. 12,771 Chuckrums 26 cash 8 was alone mentioned. In the document, the balance of Rs. 38 Chuckrum 1 cash 8 having been paid as ready cash to the defendants. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that at the time of the execution of the sale deed the defendants had agreed that they would make good any deficiency in the extent of the property conveyed in case it is found that there is such a deficiency. At the time of the measurement of the property in Medom 1125, it was found that in the property put in the possession of the plaintiff as vendee under Ext. D there is a deficiency of 3 acres and 35 cents. It is because the defendants have not made good this deficiency and are not agreeable to pay back the value of the said shortage of 3 acres and 35 cents that the plai