# Muhammad Siddiq v. Muhammad Nuh, J.L.R. 52 All. 604 ond Gulabchand

- **Citation:** [1966] 3 S.C.R. 608
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-02-16
- **Bench:** K. Subba Rao, V. Ramaswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/muhammad-siddiq-v-muhammad-nuh-j-l-r-52-all-604-ond-gulabchand-3623
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Indemnity and guarantee-Sale of land by one having a voidable till•
ancl puuing purchaser in pos~ession-Agreenient to indemniry purcha.serSale sec aside al the instance of person, entitled to avold-Nt> disposjeS·
slon of purcharer-Enforceabiliry of indemnity bond.
The second defendant sold property belonging to himself and his minor
.on the third defendant. and also executed an indemnity bond in favour
B
of the vendee agreeing to indemnify him for any loss that might be caused
C
to him in case the sale of the third defendant's half share should later on
be set aside. The vendee sold the property to the plaintiffs and assianed
the indemnity bond in their favour and the plaintiffs took possession of
tho propeny.
The third defendant, after attaining majority, sued for
settinJ1 aside the sale in respect of his half share and for partition. The
plaintiffs contested the suit but the third defendant's suit was decreed.
He, however, did not dispossess the plaintifis.
Meanwhile, a creditor of
the third defendant obtained a money decree against him and in execution
D
tllereof attached and brought to sale the third defendant's half share, and,
the
brother-in-law
of the
plaintiffs
purchased
the
property,
hut
the
plaintiffs
continued
in
possession
of
the
property.
The
plaintiffs, thereafter, filed the suit for recovery of half the consideration
paid by them, on the allegation that they sustained damage by the lo~•
of one half of the prop<>rty bought by them, and that they were entitled
to recover damages from the second defendant. The suit was conte>ted
on the ground that the court sale in favour of the brothers-in-law of the
E
plaintiffs was benami for the plaintiffs, and that as the plaintiffs never lost
ownership or possession of the halfshare. they did not sustain any loss.
lbe trial court decreed the suit.
The High Court, on appeal, confined
the de<:ree to the actual loss sustained, namely, tho amount for the court
•ale and the amount spent for the defence of the third defendant's suit.
In appeal to the Court, on the question of the quantum of damages to
which the plainti1fs were entitled,
r
HELD : High Court was right in granting a decree to the plaintiffs
only for the rum whiah was the actual loss sustained by them.
The sale of the half share of the third defendant was not void ab
initio but was only voidable. In such a caoe the indemnity bond becomes
enforceable only if the vendee is disposscsed from the properties, hccausc,
a broach of the covenant can only occur on the diaturbancc or the vendee"s
pQISea.<ion.
So long as tho vendee remains in ~on. he suffers no
G
loss and no suit can be brought for damage. either on the basis of the
indemnity bond or for the broach of a convcnant of the warranty of title.
[610 H-611 BJ
Subbaroya Reddiar v. Ra;agopala Reddiar, (1915) IL R. 38 Mad. 887
Muhammad Siddiq v. Muhammad Nuh, J.L.R. 52 All. 604 ond Gulabchand
Daularram v. Suryaji Rao Ganpatrao, A.l.R. 1950 Born. 401, approved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTJO'S: Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1964.
H
Anneal from the judgment and decree dated January 7, I 955
of the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit No. 371 of 1959.
I
•
.•
A
B
. i
c
D
E
F
G
""'Ji.
~
.
H
CHETTIAR v. IYER (Ramaswami, /.)
609
R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. Thiagarajan, for appellants.
M. S. K. Sastri and M. S. Narasimhan, for respondent No. 2

## Text

V. M. RV. MR. RAMASWAMI CHEITIAR AND ANR.
A
l'.
R. MUTIIUKRISHNA IYER AND OTHERS .
February 16, 1966
[K. SUBBA RAO AND V. RAMASWAMI JJ.]
Indemnity and guarantee-Sale of land by one having a voidable till•
ancl puuing purchaser in pos~ession-Agreenient to indemniry purcha.serSale sec aside al the instance of person, entitled to avold-Nt> disposjeS·
slon of purcharer-Enforceabiliry of indemnity bond.
The second defendant sold property belonging to himself and his minor
.on the third defendant. and also executed an indemnity bond in favour
B
of the vendee agreeing to indemnify him for any loss that might be caused
C
to him in case the sale of the third defendant's half share should later on
be set aside. The vendee sold the property to the plaintiffs and assianed
the indemnity bond in their favour and the plaintiffs took possession of
tho propeny.
The third defendant, after attaining majority, sued for
settinJ1 aside the sale in respect of his half share and for partition. The
plaintiffs contested the suit but the third defendant's suit was decreed.
He, however, did not dispossess the plaintifis.
Meanwhile, a creditor of
the third defendant obtained a money decree against him and in execution
D
tllereof attached and brought to sale the third defendant's half share, and,
the
brother-in-law
of the
plaintiffs
purchased
the
property,
hut
the
plaintiffs
continued
in
possession
of
the
property.
The
plaintiffs, thereafter, filed the suit for recovery of half the consideration
paid by them, on the allegation that they sustained damage by the lo~•
of one half of the prop<>rty bought by them, and that they were entitled
to recover damages from the second defendant. The suit was conte>ted
on the ground that the court sale in favour of the brothers-in-law of the
E
plaintiffs was benami for the plaintiffs, and that as the plaintiffs never lost
ownership or possession of the halfshare. they did not sustain any loss.
lbe trial court decreed the suit.
The High Court, on appeal, confined
the de<:ree to the actual loss sustained, namely, tho amount for the court
•ale and the amount spent for the defence of the third defendant's suit.
In appeal to the Court, on the question of the quantum of damages to
which the plainti1fs were entitled,
r
HELD : High Court was right in granting a decree to the plaintiffs
only for the rum whiah was the actual loss sustained by them.
The sale of the half share of the third defendant was not void ab
initio but was only voidable. In such a caoe the indemnity bond becomes
enforceable only if the vendee is disposscsed from the properties, hccausc,
a broach of the covenant can only occur on the diaturbancc or the vendee"s
pQISea.<ion.
So long as tho vendee remains in ~on. he suffers no
G
loss and no suit can be brought for damage. either on the basis of the
indemnity bond or for the broach of a convcnant of the warranty of title.
[610 H-611 BJ
Subbaroya Reddiar v. Ra;agopala Reddiar, (1915) IL R. 38 Mad. 887
Muhammad Siddiq v. Muhammad Nuh, J.L.R. 52 All. 604 ond Gulabchand
Daularram v. Suryaji Rao Ganpatrao, A.l.R. 1950 Born. 401, approved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTJO'S: Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1964.
H
Anneal from the judgment and decree dated January 7, I 955
of the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit No. 371 of 1959.
I
•
.•
A
B
. i
c
D
E
F
G
""'Ji.
~
.
H
CHETTIAR v. IYER (Ramaswami, /.)
609
R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. Thiagarajan, for appellants.
M. S. K. Sastri and M. S. Narasimhan, for respondent No. 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami. J. In the suit which is the~subject-matter of
this appeal the plaintiffs alleged that Plaint 'A' Schedule properties
belonged to the second defendant and his son, the third defendan~.
The second defendant sold the village for Rs. 28,000/· to one Swanunatha Sarma by a sale deed Ex. A dated December 12, 1912 which
he executed for himself and as guardian of the third defendant who
was then a minor. The second defendant also agreed to indemnify any loss that might be caused to his vendee in case the sale
of his minor son's half share should later on be set aside. Accordingly the second defendant executed the Indemnity Bond-Ex.
B in favour of Swaminatha Sarma. The sons of Swaminatha Sarma
sold Plaint 'A' Schedule village to the father of the Plaintiffs for a
sum of Rs. 53,000/-. On the same date they assigned the Indemnity
Bond-Ex. B to the father of the plaintiffs under an Assignment
Deed-Ex. D. The third defendant after attaining majority filed
O.S. no. 640 of 1923 in the Chief Court of Pudukottai for setting
aside the sale deed_::._Ex. A in respect of his share and for partition of joint family properties. The plaintiffs were impleaded as
defendants 108 and 109 in that suit. The suit was decreed in
favour of the third defendant and the sale of his share was set
aside on condition of his paying a sum of Rs. 7,000/· to defendants
108 and 109, and a preliminary decree for partition was also granted. In further proceedings, the village was divided by metes and
bounds and a final decree-Ex. F was passed on October 6, 1936.
Meanwhile, a creditor of the third defendant obtained a money
decree and in execution thereof, attached and brought to sale the
third defendant's half-share in the 'A' Schedule village. In the
auction-sale Subbaiah Chettiar, the plaintiff's brother-in-law purchased the property for a sum of Rs. 736/- subject to the liability
for payment of Rs. 7,000/- under the decree in O.S. no. 640 of
1923. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have brought the present suit on the
allegation that they have sustained damage by the loss of one half
of the 'A' Schedule village and are entitled to recover the same from
the second defendant personally and out of the 'B' Schedule properties. The plaintiffs have claimed damages to the extent of half
of the consideration for the sale deed-Ex. C. minus Rs. 7,000/-withdrawn by them. The plaintiffs claimed a further sum of Rs. 500/-
as Court expenses making a total of Rs. 20,000. The suit was
contested on the ground that the Court sale in favour of Subbaiah
Chettiar was benami for the plaintiffs and the latter never lost
ownership or possession of a half-share of the 'A' Schedule village
and consequently the plaintiffs did not sustain any loss. The
trial court held that Subbaiah Chettiar-P.W. I was benamidar of
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 3 S.C.R,
the plaintiffs who continued to remain in possession of the whole
village. The trial court was, however, of the opinion that though
the plaintiffs had, in fact, purchased the third defendant's halfshare in the Court sale, they were not bound to do so and they
could claim damages on the assumption that third parties had purchased the same. The trial court accordingly gave a decree to the
plaintiffs for the entire amount claimed and made the payment
of the amount as charge on 'B' Schedule properties. The second
defendant took the matter in appeal to the Madras High Court
which found that the only loss actually sustained by the plaintiffs
was the sum of Rs. 736/- paid for the Court sale and the sum of
Rs. 500/- spent for the defence of O.S. no. 640 of 1923. The High
Court accordingly modified the decree of the trial court and limited
the quantum of damages to a sum of Rs. 1236/- and interest at 6
per cent p.a. from the date of the suit.
The question presented for determination in this appeal iswhat is the quantum of damages to which the plaintiffs arc entitled
for a breach of warranty of title under the Indemnity Bond-Ex. B
dated Decemher 19, 1912.
It was contended hy Mr. Ganapathy Iyer on behalf of the
appellants that in O.S. no. 640 of 1923, defendant no. 3 obtained
a partition decree and a declaration that defendant no. 2 was not
entitled to alienate his share in the 'A' Schedule properties. It was
submitted that on account of this decree the appellants lost title
to half-share of 'A' Schedule properties and accordingly the appellants were entitled to get hack half the amount of consideration
under the Indemnity Bond-Ex. B. The arugment was stressed
on behalf of the appellants that the circumstance that the plaintiffs
had a title of benamidar to the half-share of the third defendant in
Court auction, was not a relevant factor so far as the claim for
damages was concerned. It was suggested that the purchase in
court auction was an independent transaction and the defendants
wuld not take the benefit of that transaction. We are unable to
accept the contention of the appellants as correct. In the present
case it should he observed, in the first place, that the Indemnity
Bond--Ex. B states that defendant no. 2 shall be liable to pay the
amount of loss "in case the sale of the share of the said minor sonChidambaram-· is sci aside and you arc made to sustain any loss".
In the second place, it is important to notice that the sale deed-Ex.
A executed by the second defendant in favour of Swaminatha
Sarma was only voidahle with regard to the share of the third
defendant and the family properties. The sale of the half-share
of defendant no. 3 was not void ab initio but it was only voidable
if defendant no. 3 chose to avoid it and proved in Court that the
alienation was not for legal necessity. In a case of this description the Indemnity Bond becomes enforceable only if the vendee
is dispossessed from the properties in dispute. A breach of the
A
B
c
D
·'
E
F
G
II
A
B
c
D
'
E
F
G
,
H
CHETTJAR v. IYER (Ramaswami, !.)
611
convenant can only occur on the disturbance of the vendee's
possession and so long as the vendee remains in possession, he
suffers no loss and no suit can be brought for damages either on
the basis of the
Indemnity Bond or for the breach of a
convenant of the warranty of title. The view that we have expressed is borne out by the decision of the Madras High Court in
Subbaroya Reddiar v. Rajagopala Reddiar (') in which A who had
a title to certain immovable property, voidable at the option of C,
sold it to Band put Bin possession thereof. C then brought a suit
against A and B, got a decree and obtained possession thereof in
execution. In this state of facts it was held by Seshagiri Ayyar, J,
that B's cause of action for the return of the purchase money
arose not on the date of the sale but on the date of his dispossession when alone there was a failure of consideration and the
article applicable was article 97 of the Limitation Act. At page
889 of the Report Seshagiri Ayyar, J. states:
"These cases can roughly speaking be classified
under three heads: (a) where from the inception the vendor
had no title to convey and the vendee has not been put in
possession of the property; (b) where the sale is only voidable
on the objection of third parties and possession is taken
under the voidable sale; and (c) where though the title
is known to be imperfect, the contract is in part carrried out
by giving possession of the properties. In the first class of
cases, the starting point of limitation will be the .date of the
sale. That is Mr. Justice Bakewell's view in [Ramanatha
Iyer v. Ozhapoor Pathiriseri Raman Namburdripad (1913)
14 M.L.T. 524]; and I do not think Mr. Justice Miller
dissents from it. However, the present case is quite
different. In the second class of cases the cause of action
can arise only when it is found that there is no good title.
The party is in possession and that is what at the outset
under a contract of sale a purchaser is entitled to, and so
long as his possession is not disturbed, he is not damnified.
The cause of action will therefore arise when his right to
continue in possession is disturbed. The decisions of the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Hanuman
Kamat v. HanumanMandur (1892) I.L.R. 19 Cal. 123 (P.C.)
and in Bassu Kuar v. Dhum Singh (1889) I.L.R. 11 All.
47 (P.C.) are authorities for this position."
A similar view has been expressed by the Allahabad High Court
in .Muhammad Siddiq v. .Muhammad Nuh (2) and the Bombay
High Court in Gulabchand Daulatram v. Survajirao Ganpatrao.(')
In the present case it has been found by the High Court that P.W.
1, the auction-purchaser was the brother-in-law of the plaintiffs
(I) I.LR. 38 Mad. 887.
(2) I.LR. 52 All. 604.
(3) A.l.R. 1950 Born. 401.
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1966) 3 S.C.R.
and that he was managing the estate of the plaintiffs and defending
0.S. 640 of 1923 on their behalf. It has ·also been found that
P. W. I did not take possession at any time and plaintiffs have
been cultivating and enjoying the whole village all along and at no
time were the plaintiffs dispossessed of the property. The only
loss sustained by the plaintiffs was a sum of Rs. 736/- paid at the
Court sale and a sum of Rs. 500/- spent for the defence of 0.S.
no. 640 of 1923 which the plaintiffs had to incur for protecting
the continuance of their possession over the disputed share of land.
Accordingly the High Court was right in granting a decree to the
plaintiffs only for a sum of Rs. 1236/- which was the actual loss
sustained by them and they are not entitled to any further amount.
For these reasons we hold that there is no merit in this appeal
which is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
B
c