Unascertained timber goods and lack of notice left the later purchaser's title unaffected by the prior agreement.

An agreement to cut and remove timber did not transfer title to any specific trees where the trees meeting the stipulated girth remained unascertained until selection from time to time; under the Sale of Goods Act, property in unascertained goods does not pass before ascertainment. The earlier claim also failed because actual or constructive notice of the agreement was not proved against the later purchaser. The evidence did not show knowledge of the arrangement, and mere omission to make further enquiries or the claimed possession was insufficient to fasten notice under property law. The later sale therefore prevailed over the prior arrangement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agreement in favour of the plaintiffs transferred title to any specific trees so as to defeat the defendant's later purchase; (ii) Whether the defendant was affected by actual or constructive notice of the plaintiffs' rights under the agreement.

Issue (i): Whether the agreement in favour of the plaintiffs transferred title to any specific trees so as to defeat the defendant's later purchase.

Analysis: The agreement, read as a whole, showed that the plaintiffs were entitled only to cut and remove trees of specified description and maturity during the stipulated period, and that the identity of the trees satisfying the required girth could only be ascertained from time to time. Under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, property in unascertained goods does not pass until ascertainment, while in the case of specific or ascertained goods property passes according to the intention of the parties. The timber in question was therefore unascertained goods and no specific trees had passed to the plaintiffs before the village property was sold to the defendant.

Conclusion: The agreement did not vest title in any specific trees in the plaintiffs, and their claim to defeat the defendant's title failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendant was affected by actual or constructive notice of the plaintiffs' rights under the agreement.

Analysis: The evidence did not establish that the defendant or the Special Manager who sold the property on behalf of the Court of Wards had knowledge of the agreement. The burden lay on the plaintiffs to prove notice, and the circumstances relied upon were insufficient to show either actual knowledge or constructive notice. Mere failure to make further enquiries was not enough, and there was also no proof that the plaintiffs were in such possession as to fasten notice on the purchaser under the Transfer of Property Act.

Conclusion: Notice, actual or constructive, was not proved against the defendant.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiffs could not establish either prior title in the timber or notice binding the purchaser, so the defendant's title under the later sale prevailed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the subject-matter of a timber agreement remains unascertained and the purchaser of the property has not been proved to have notice of the prior arrangement, property does not pass to the earlier claimant and the later transferee takes free of that claim.

---