2000 (11) TMI 1244 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Sale of the car and transfer of title.
2. Seizure of the car by Delhi Police.
3. Breach of warranties and conditions of sale.
4. Plaintiff's claim for damages.
5. Compliance with the remand order by the Division Bench.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Sale of the Car and Transfer of Title:
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant sold an Ambassador Car (DHB 8043) to him on 6.8.1972 for Rs. 13,750/-, and the plaintiff purchased the car in good faith. However, the defendant did not transfer the registration to the plaintiff's name. The defendant denied selling the car and accepting any consideration, stating that his mother-in-law purchased the car and sold it to one Damodaran Pillai, who then sold it to the plaintiff. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the High Court remanded the matter to allow the plaintiff to amend the pleadings to include the loss of the car due to the vendor's lack of title.

2. Seizure of the Car by Delhi Police:
While in possession of the plaintiff, the car was seized by the Delhi Police on 25.9.1972 in connection with a criminal case (Crime No. 181 of 1972) against Nazir Ahammed, alleging the car was stolen property. The plaintiff contended that the car was seized in the presence of the defendant and that he suffered damages due to the breach of warranties and conditions related to the sale.

3. Breach of Warranties and Conditions of Sale:
The plaintiff argued that the defendant had no title to the car at the time of sale, which disabled the plaintiff from claiming ownership in any court. The plaintiff relied on Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act, which implies a condition that the seller has the right to sell the goods and a warranty that the buyer shall have and enjoy quiet possession of the goods. The defendant countered that the seizure of the car alone did not prove the lack of title and that the plaintiff failed to show he had lost title to the vehicle.

4. Plaintiff's Claim for Damages:
The plaintiff initially succeeded in the trial court, which awarded Rs. 13,750/- with 6% interest. However, on appeal, the High Court remanded the case for the plaintiff to amend the pleadings to explicitly state that the car was lost due to the vendor's lack of title. The plaintiff amended the plaint, but the defendant argued that the amendment did not comply with the High Court's directions, as it did not categorically state that the plaintiff lost title to the vehicle. The High Court, upon review, found that the plaintiff did not plead or prove the loss of title, thereby failing to establish a claim for damages.

5. Compliance with the Remand Order by the Division Bench:
The High Court emphasized that the plaintiff needed to comply with the remand order by clearly pleading and proving the loss of title to claim damages. The court noted that the plaintiff's amendment did not meet this requirement, as it only stated that the defendant had not obtained any title to pass on to the plaintiff. The court held that without a clear case of loss of title, the plaintiff could not claim damages. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Jasraj Indersingh v. Hemraj Multanchand, which established that a subordinate court must adhere to the High Court's remand order and that the same High Court cannot discard an earlier holding on a second occasion.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, concurring with the earlier Division Bench's finding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the remand order by not pleading or proving the loss of title. Consequently, the plaintiff could not claim damages against the defendant. The court ordered no costs in the circumstances of the case.