JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant purchased an Ambassador Car bearing No. MRZ 9450 from the 7th respondent. The number of the car had been changed to MYG 1620. The appellant paid to the 7th respondent full consideration amounting to Rs. 16,600/- for the car. On purchase the transfer of registration papers of the car was effected in the name of the appellant. The Ambassador car was, however, seized from the appellant by the Sub Inspector of Police, Matunga Police Station, Bombay (D-5). The appellant then discovered that the vehicle sold to him was, in fact, a stolen car. 2. He filed a suit being O.S. No. 7/72 in the court of the Subordinate judge, Kasaragod against respondent No. 7 for recovery of Rs. 16,600/- and damages of Rs. 1,650/- plus costs. The trial court came to the conclusion that looking to the evidence, what had been sold to the appellant was a stolen car to which the 7th respondent had no title. The car had been seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, Matunga Police Station. Bombay in connexion with the investigation of Crime No. 1260/1968 of Azad Maidan Police Station, Bombay. The Sessions case in this connexion was concluded and the accused therein had been convicted. The suit car was also ordered to be handed over to Scandia Insurance Company, Bombay as the car was insured by its original owner with it at the time when it was stolen from his custody. The trial court held that the 7th respondent committed a breach of the implied condition as to his right to sell the car as set out in Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act. 1930. It decreed the suit in favour of the appellant for Rs. 16,600/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the judgment till realisation. 3. In appeal, however, the High Court set aside the above judgment and order of the trial court and dismissed the suit with costs of the 7th respondent in both the courts. The present appeal is from the judgment and order of the High Court. 4. 3. In appeal, however, the High Court set aside the above judgment and order of the trial court and dismissed the suit with costs of the 7th respondent in both the courts. The present appeal is from the judgment and order of the High Court. 4. In view of the findings given by the trial court on the basis of evidence led before it, it is clear that the car which was sold by the 7th respondent to the appellant was a stolen car in respect of which a complaint had been lodged by the original owner with the Azad Maidan Police Station, Bombay. It is also clear that the accused who were prosecuted have been convicted and the car has been ordered to he handed over to the Insurance Co. concerned. Under Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, in a contract of sale, there is an implied condition on the part of the seller that in the case of a sale, he has a right to sell the goods. In the present case, there is a clear violation of this implied condition since the 7th respondent had no right to sell the car. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Court of Appeals in Rowland v. Divall (1923 AER 270) where, on similar facts, the court held that the plaintiff therein was entitled to the recovery of the consideration amount for the stolen car sold to him, from his seller. The claim was granted in view of Section 12(1) of the English Sale of Goods Act, 1893 which is similar to Section 14(a) of our Sale of Goods Act, 1930. He has also relied upon two other English judgments, viz., Mason v. Burningham, (1949 [2] AER. 134) and Microbeads AC & Ann v. Vinhurst Road Markings Ltd., (1975 [1] AER 529) as also on Chiranji Lal v. Hans Raj, (AIR 1961 Punjab 437) and Vempala Appa Rao v. Manikonda Someswara Rao, (1977 [1] Andhra Weekly Reporter 440). 5. We agree with the findings and conclusions arrived at by the trial court. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court is restored. Since nobody appears for the 7th respondent, there shall be no order as to costs.