Ascertainment of goods is necessary for the transfer of ownership

Ashutosh Rajput | Hidayatullah National Law University | 16th May 2020

Badri Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. [Civil Appeal 18 of 1966]

Facts:

The contract was entered between the appellant and the respondent on December 27, 1950 wherein the appellant was entitled to cut teak trees having girth and height of more than 12 inches and 3 inches respectively. Subsequently, in 1951 the Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (herein referred to as ‘Act’) was enacted which prohibited the appellant from cutting timber. Due to which negotiation took place between the government and the appellant wherein the appellant became ready to pay the said amount i.e. rupees 17,000/- as offered by the government but demanded the amount of rupees 17,000/- that he paid initially. The government didn’t comply with the appellants offer, therefore; the government repudiated the said contention of the appellant. Hence, the appellant filed a suit and prayed for specific performance of the contract and if not then a relief for the damages must be awarded to the appellant amounting to rupees 50,000/-. The appellant contended that the property in the goods has vested to him therefore; he has a right to cut timber. The respondent contended that the appellant’s case is covered by previous decisions so it has to be rejected.

Issue: 

Whether the appellant has a right to cut the timber?

Judgment: 

The appellant had not become the owner of the trees as goods just by paying the said price. The appellant would have become the owner had the trees been felled subsequent to the agreement. But in this case the trees were vested to the state before they were felled. And there was no ascertainment of trees as a good which is to be cut by the appellant so this tree came in the category of unascertained goods within section 19 of the Goods and Sales Act, 1930. For the initiation of the very act there should be a new agreement between the appellant and the respondent and the High Court rightly held that the acceptance of the offer made on Feb 1 1955, was conditional and unqualified. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.