Oral evidence cannot contradict an express covenant for title, and implied covenants for title must be deemed to be embodied in the deed of sale.

Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.

1. The plaintiffs father, one Latchayya, purchased certain properties from defendants 1 and 2 under the sate deed Ex. A on 29th October, 1933, for a sum of Rs. 4,500. The properties consist of jeroiti lands and inam lands. The step-mother of the defendants had obtained a maintenance charge decree against the jeroiti lands in O.S. No. 480 of 1930. In execution of this charge decree, the jeroiti lands were sought to be brought to sale and it is said that the plaintiffs had to deposit a sum of Rs. 96-6-0 into Court to avoid the sale. It is further alleged that on a later occasion they had to pay Rs. 170 towards the charge decree and that finally the properties were brought to sale in Court auction and were purchased by a third party on the 7th December, 1942, for a sum of Rs. 238 subject to the payment of the annual maintenance of Rs. 60 to the decree-holder. The purchaser obtained delivery through Court and ejected the plaintiffs. All these are stated in the affidavit in support of the application to admit the sale certificate and the delivery receipt as additional evidence in this second appeal. In the counter-affidavit opposing the applications the chief point made is that the purchaser Jagannadha Acharlu is a benamidar for the plaintiff and that the lands despite the Court, auction sale continue to be in their possession.

2. Relying therefore on the defect in title as regards the jeroiti lands comprised in the sale deed and specified in the B schedule to the plaint, the plaintiffs brought this suit claiming to recover by way of damages for breach of contract of covenant of title a sum of Rs. 2,658-8-0 said to be the price of the properties, and a further sum of Rs. 200 said to be the loss suffered by them on account of breach of covenant of title, as well as the sum of Rs. 96-6-0 which they paid on 20th December, 1939, to avert the sale in execution of the charge decree in O.S. No. 480 of 1930. The defendants resisted the suit on three grounds. Firstly, there was no representation made to Latchayya that the properties were not subject to any charge or charges, secondly, that Latchayya knew of the creation of the charge, as it was he that was conducting the suit, O.S. No. 480 of 1930, on behalf of these defendants, and thirdly, that the sale was for a lower price than the market price because it was made subject to the charge. The District Munsiff overruled these objections and gave the plaintiffs a decree. But on appeal the District Judge has come to the conclusion that Latchayya was aware of the charge decree when he purchased the properties under Exhibit A and that after the purchase he was himself paying for some years the maintenance amount to the step-mother. He has also found that the price of Rs. 4,500 was less than the market value of the lands on the date of the sale and the low price was agreed to on account of the charge on the B schedule properties. Latchayyas daughter is married to the second defendant and, according to the District Judge, after quarrels arose between them Latchayya defaulted to pay the amounts due to the step-mother under the charge decree purposely and with the object of harassing the second defendant with a litigation of this kind. His final conclusion is stated in paragraph 8 of the judgment in appeal in these words:

So taking all these circumstances into consideration I hold that the buyer as well as the seller were aware of the defect and that for reasons of their own and concerning which we have no evidence they have agreed not to disclose in the sale deed the maintenance charge.

On this finding the plaintiffs suit was dismissed.

3. It has been held in several decisions that the fact that the buyer knew of a defect in title of the seller prior to the purchase does not prevent him from suing for damages for breach of covenant of title. Therefore mere knowledge on the part of Latchayya when he purchased under Ex. A that there was an outstanding charge decree again