Defective title and limitation: knowing purchase of flawed property defeats refund claims, and time runs from the sale date.

A purchaser who knowingly enters a sale despite the vendor's defective title cannot sustain a claim for damages or refund, because the basis for breach of covenant is absent when the defect was accepted at the outset. Where the vendor had no title from inception and the purchaser was never put in possession, the breach is treated as occurring on the date of sale itself. Limitation for a refund claim therefore runs from that date, and a suit filed more than three years later is time-barred. On these facts, the decree against the vendor could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a purchaser who knowingly bought property with defective title could claim damages or refund from the vendor. (ii) Whether the claim for refund of sale consideration was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether a purchaser who knowingly bought property with defective title could claim damages or refund from the vendor.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the vendor had no title or possession of any specific portion of the property and that the purchaser had taken the sale deed as part of a speculative attempt to litigate. Where the purchaser deliberately enters into the transaction with knowledge of the vendor's lack of title, the basis of damages for breach of covenant is absent.

Conclusion: The claim for damages or refund was not sustainable on merits against the vendor.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for refund of sale consideration was barred by limitation.

Analysis: In a case where the vendor had no title from the inception and the purchaser was never put in possession, the breach occurs on the date of sale itself. The applicable three-year period therefore runs from that date, and the claim cannot be postponed to a later date when possession might have been sought or disturbed. The claim was brought more than three years after the sale.

Conclusion: The claim for refund of sale consideration was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The decree against the vendor could not be sustained, and the second appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the purchaser knowingly enters into a transaction despite the vendor's defective title, and the purchaser is never put in possession, the breach of contract occurs on the date of sale and limitation for refund or damages runs from that date.

---