Implied warranty of title under property law cannot be relied on by a purchaser who knowingly bought without title for litigation.

Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act implies a seller's covenant that the professed interest exists and the transferor has power to convey it, so that an unaware purchaser may claim damages if the defect later emerges. That implied warranty is not available where the buyer knowingly purchased from a seller without title and entered the transaction to create litigation. In such a case, the arrangement may also offend Section 23 of the Contract Act because its object is fraudulent and injurious to another. On these facts, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the litigation expenses from the prior proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff, having knowingly purchased property from a seller without title for an improper purpose, could recover the litigation expenses incurred in proceedings arising from that transaction.

Analysis: Section 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act implies a covenant by the seller that the interest professed to be transferred subsists and that he has power to transfer it. That implied warranty may support a claim for damages where the buyer acted on a representation and the defect later emerges, even if the buyer had some awareness of the defect. But the position is different where the buyer knew full well that the seller had no title and nevertheless entered the transaction deliberately to create litigation. In such a case, the implied warranty cannot be invoked, and the agreement may also be questionable under Section 23 of the Contract Act because its object is fraudulent and injurious to another.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to recover the expenses incurred in the prior litigation.

---