The measure of damages for breach of covenant of title should be the market value of the property at the time of dispossession, and the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for actual loss suffered.

( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs appeal. It arises out of original suit No. 235 of 1970 filed by the present appellant against the respondents for recovery of damages on the ground of breach of a covenant for title and quiet enjoyment. He claimed recovery of Rs. 8,000/- as principal consideration and Rs. 9,600/- as interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum for the period 21-11-1960 till the date of filing of the suit and Rs. 4,000/- towards expenditure incurred by the plaintiff in contesting the suit filed by one hanuman Prasad. The plaint was amended subsequently. By this amendment an alternative relief for recovery of Rs. 6,250/- i. e. half amount of principal consideration of two sale-deeds plus interest and expenditure of litigations were claimed.

( 2 ) THE subject matter of the suit is house no. CK 43/1 Mohalla Govindpura in the City of Varanasi. One Qudrat Ali was the owner of the said house. He had purchased the house in the name of his second wife Smt. Mehadi Begum who later on gifted the same to him on 24-10-1927. The plaint discloses that the said house was subjected to successive transfers and was involved in litigation. However, those transfers being beyond the scope of the present suit, it is not necessary to notice them in extenso. Suffice it to say that ultimately one Gulam Abbas claimed to be exclusive owner of the said house on the basis of sale-deed dated 30-8-1940 executed by Smt. Hasina. Gulam abbas executed two sale-deeds both dated 28th July, 1955. Eastern half portion of the house was sold to the plaintiff and western half portion to the defendant No. 1 Ram prasad. Ram Prasad on 21-11-1960 sold the half western portion also to the plaintiff; resultantly the plaintiff became the exclusive owner of the house in question.

( 3 ) ONE Hanuman Prasad filed a suit No. 58 of 1964 for partition against the present plaintiff and defendants and certain other persons claiming his half share in the disputed house for partition on the assertion that Gulam Abbas had only half share in the house in the suit. Hanuman Prasad also claimed half share by means of some sale- deed in his favour. In this suit of Hanuman prasad, besides other persons the present plaintiff and defendants were impleaded as defendants. The plaintiff having purchased the share of defendant No. 1 by means of sale-deed dated 21-11-1960 as referred above, unsuccessfully defended the suit No. 58 of 1964 upto Apex Court. The Supreme court held that Hanuman Prasad and gulam Abbas (vendor of the plaintiff) were the co-owners of the house in question and thus Hanuman Prasad, the plaintiff of suit no. 58 of 1964 is entitled for half share in the house in question and a preliminary decree for partition as passed by the trial court was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Proceedings for preparation of final decree were initiated and the executing Court proposed the Qurras of the parties. Being dissatisfied by the allotment of Qurras an appeal was filed in the High Court. It remained pending for a considerable time. As informed by the counsel for the parties, the said appeal has been decided by this Court during the pendency of the present appeal.

( 4 ) THE appellant, Ram Avtar, filed the suit No. 235 of 1970 giving rise to the present appeal for recovery of damages against Ram prasad, defendant No. 1, and heirs and legal representatives of Gulam Abbas, namely, defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, for breach of covenant of title, possession etc. in respect of the half share in the house in suit.

( 5 ) THE suit was contested by the defendants No. 1 and 2 only and it proceeded ex parte against the remaining defendants. The defendant No. 1 upto paragraph No. 43 of the written statement has set out various transactions with respect to the property in question. In subsequent paragraphs he has pleaded that the plaintiff after making necessary enquiries and after being satisfied with the title of the defendant No. 1 got executed the sale-deed dated 21-11-1960. It has