9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Warranty of Title in Revenue Sale 2. Total Failure of Consideration 3. Proportionate Refund of Purchase Money 4. Fraud by the State 5. Negligence in Proclamation Statement Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Warranty of Title in Revenue Sale The defendant, the State of Kerala, contended that there was no warranty of title in a revenue sale. The court confirmed this stance, noting that "there is no warranty of title in a sale in invitum." This principle was supported by precedent cases such as Firm Narasingi Vannechand v. Narasayya, AIR 1945 Mad 363, which held that a judgment-debtor's lack of title does not warrant a refund of the purchase money. 2. Total Failure of Consideration The plaintiff argued that there was a total failure of consideration regarding S. No. 303/1, as Kochu Kunhu had no title at the time of the revenue sale. The court acknowledged that "a purchaser is entitled to sue and recover the purchase money in an action for money had and received if there is a total failure of consideration." However, it was determined that there was no total failure of consideration because the plaintiff acquired title to and possession of S. No. 15/2. The court found the argument that "unless the consideration can be severed it is impossible to find out the extent of the failure of consideration" to be sound. 3. Proportionate Refund of Purchase Money The plaintiff sought a refund of the proportionate purchase money for S. No. 303/1. The court ruled that such a refund was not maintainable because the sale was for a single consideration and it was "difficult to say that the consideration failed in toto." The court referenced Nagalinga Chettiar v. Guruswami Ayyar, AIR 1930 Mad 856, which held that a purchaser is not entitled to recover the proportionate part of the purchase money if the judgment-debtor had no title to one of the items sold in one lot. 4. Fraud by the State The plaintiff alleged fraud by the State, arguing that the State knew Kochu Kunhu had no title to the property but still represented that he had the equity of redemption. The court examined whether the State could be held liable for fraud committed by its agents. It referenced cases like Cornfoot v. Fowke (1840) 6 M 358 and London County Freehold and Leasehold Properties Ltd. v. Berkeley Property and Investment Co. Ltd. 1936 2 All ER 1039, which discussed the liability of principals for the fraud of their agents. The court concluded that "there is no proof in this case that the Tahsildar had actual knowledge of the sale" and thus did not find the State liable for fraud. 5. Negligence in Proclamation Statement The plaintiff introduced the argument of negligence for the first time during the appeal, claiming that the Tahsildar was negligent in making the proclamation statement. The court noted that "the case of negligence was not pleaded in the plaint or advanced in argument in the Court below." Therefore, the court did not make any pronouncement on this issue, especially considering recent decisions like Hedley Byme and Co. Ltd. v. Heller and Partners Ltd., 1963 2 All ER 575, which discuss the duty of care in making representations. Conclusion: The court confirmed the decree of the lower court and dismissed the appeal, concluding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The court emphasized that there was no total failure of consideration, no severable consideration for a proportionate refund, no proven fraud by the State, and did not entertain the negligence argument as it was not raised earlier. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
|
