Kundan Lal vs Bisheshar Dayal - 1927 Supreme(All) 263

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1927 Supreme(All) 263

Kundan Lal – Appellant
Versus
Bisheshar Dayal – Respondent

JUDGMENT

1. This is an interesting point upon which at one time or another there appears to have been a difference of opinion. The plaintiff has suffered the double misfortune of purchasing property of which he has not received delivery from the vendor, and also of paying the price. The defendant has failed to make a title. The suggestion is that he had already sold to somebody else, although that issue has not been actually determined because the case has been disposed of on the legal question. It seems more likely that it was a piece of dishonesty on the part of the vendor than a mere act of forgetfulness, but that does not alter the law. One result is that the plaintiff has paid the purchase price for a consideration, namely, the transferor of the property, which has failed. That is Article 97. Another view of the matter is that he has paid money to the defendant for nothing which the defendant has no right to retain against the demand of the plaintiff, as was said by the old lawyers, against equity and right. That is money received for the use of the plaintiff, which is Article 62. It may be also treated, and good reasons could be given for doing so, as either a breach of a cont

Click Here to Read the rest of this document