AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Scott, C.J.—We take it that the conclusion of the learned Judge of this Court, from whose decision this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed, is that on the true construction of Exhibit I, what was professed to be conveyed was a title whose existence was contingent on the pleasure of the jenimi. If so, the interest which the seller "professed" to transfer was not larger than what he actually possessed and hence the covenant mentioned in Clause (2) of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act was not broken and the learned Judge rightly (if we may say so with respect) distinguished the cases Subbaraya Reddiar v. Rajagopala Reddiar 23 Ind. Cas. 570; (1914) M.W.N. 376 and Arunachala Aiyar v. Ramasami Aiyar 25 Ind. Cas 6; 1 L.W. 849.
We dismiss the appeal with costs.