Form No. 193. VENDOR AGAINST PURCHASER FOR NOT COMPLETING PURCHASE. Plaintiff states: 1. That by an agreement in writing, dated the day of 18 it was agreed by and between the plaintiff and the defendant ing of the said agreement, and the remainder on the be completed. (b) That the plaintiff should deduce and make a good title to the day of 18 " said premises on or before the defendant's expense. 2. That all conditions were fulfilled and all things bappened and all times elapsed necessary to entitle the plaintiff to have the said agreement performed by the defendant on his part; yet the defendant did not pay the plaintiff the remainder of the said purchase-money as aforesaid on his part. 3. That the plaintiff has thereby lost the expense which he incurred in preparing to perform the said agreement on his part, and has been put to expense in endeavouring to procure the performance thereof by the defendant. Form No. 194. VENDOR AGAINST PURCHASER for not FULFILLING AGREEMENT AND FOR DEFICIENCY ON RE-sale. Plaintiff states:- 1. That this plaintiff was the owner of four lots situated in the town of , to wit, lots Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 in block he put them up for sale at auction at the auction-rooms of C D and Co, ; that on the 'day of in the town of 18, and announced before the commencement of the sale as part of the terms of sale that ten per cent. of the purchase-money was on the day of sale to be paid by the purchaser to the auctioneers C D and Co., and that, if any purchaser failed to make such payment, the lots would be re-sold, and the purchaser be charged with the deficiency. 2. That at the said sale, A B, the defendant, bid for, and became the purchaser of, each and all of the said lots for the price of Rs. for each lot. 3. That the said defendant did not, on the day of such sale, or at any other time, pay ten per cent., nor any part of the price bid, nor the purchase-money, nor any part thereof. 4. That in consequence of such neglect of payment, and after notice given to the defendant of the time and place when and where the said lots should be re-sold on his account, and that he would be charged with the deficiency, the said lots were put up for sale and re-sold at the price of Rs. for each lot, making a deficiency of by an instrument in writing, duly executed and registered, in considera sold and conveyed to the plaintiff certain laud (de 2. That the defendant, by the said instrument, contracted with the plaintiff that he had good title to the said property, and would defend the plaintiff in his possession of the same. 3. That the defendant had not, at the time of the execution of said deed, a good and sufficient title to said premises; but one A B was then the lawful owner of said land. 4. That on the day of 18, the said A B ousted and dispossessed the plaintiff of the said premises by due course of law. 5. That plaintiff has been compelled to pay the costs and charges sustained by the said A B in prosecuting his suit in the Court of for the recovery of the said premises, which amounted to Rs. and to pay out the additional sum of Rs. defend such suit. in endeavouring to Want of Title.-Caveat Emptor.-By the rule of caveat emptor, the buyer is bound by law to take care of himself, and see that he buys after satisfying himself that there is a good title; he is bound to look not only to his own title, but to see that he is properly indemnified by the covenants in his deed of purchase; for if a deed has been once executed, unless there is an eviction by the vendor or some person claiming under him, the purchaser has no right of action against the vendor.* Necessary Averments.—In a suit for an alleged breach of covenant for title, it is not enough to prove unsuccessful proceedings to recover possession from third parties, or even an eviction by third parties, in order to prove a breach of such covenant as against the covenantor and his representatives; such proceedings are not necessarily, though they may happen to be, binding, and the plaintiff has, in general, to prove as against the covenantor, and his representatives, not only that the plaintiff's proceedings to recover possession had been unsuccessful, or that an eviction of the plaintiff had taken place, but that such proceedings were rightfully unsuccessful, or that such eviction was rightful. In other words, he has to prove, as against the covenantor or his representatives, that the title was bad by reason of some act, or fact, covenanted against. Otherwise it would be very easy for any purchaser, who had repented of his bargain, to get up collusive proceedings, either as plaintiff or defendant, and then sue the covenantor to recover purchase-money and interest.† Form No. 196. ALLEGATION OF EVICTION. That the defendant has not warranted and defended the premises to the plaintiff; but, on the contrary, one C D lawfully claimed the same premises by a paramount title, and afterwards in a suit brought by him in the Court of in which the said CD was plaintiff, and this plaintiff was defendant, the said C D, on the day of day of 18, obtained a decree, which was duly given by said Court against this plaintiff for possession of the premises, and on the 18 lawfully entered the premises and ousted the plaintiff therefrom, and still lawfully holds the plaintiff out of the possession thereof. * Gour Kishore Shaha v. Chunder Ghose, 25 W. R. 45. † Raju Balu v. Krishnarav, 1, L. R., 2 Bom. 273, 287. Form No. 197. ALLEGATION OF SPECIAL DAMAGE. That by reason thereof the plaintiff has not only lost said premises but also the sum of Rs. by him laid out and expended in and upon the said premises in repairing and improving the same, and also the sum of Rs. costs and charges sustained by the said A B in prosecuting his suit for the recovery thereof, and the sum of Rs. for his own costs, charges, and advocate's fees in defending said suit. Plaintiff states: Form No. 198. BY ASSIGNEE OF GRANTEE. 1. (Allege sale to one C D.) 2. (Allege warranty.) 3. That the said C D afterwards, on the at by an instrument duly executed and registered, in consideration of the sum of Rs. , conveyed the said premises to E F, his heirs and assigns; and the said E F afterwards, on the 18 at day of by an instrument duly executed and registered, in consideration of Rs. conveyed the same premises to the plaintiff. 4. That the plaintiff afterwards, on the at day of , entered into, and was possessed of, said premises. (Set forth breach, &c., as in preceding forms.) 18 Covenants which Run with the Land.-At Common law certain covenants run with the land; that is to say, the burthen and benefit of the covenants pass to the assignee of the reversion and of the term. These are: where the covenant refers to a thing in esse, parcel of the thing demised, as to keep a house on the demised premises in repair, the benefit of the covenant here passes to the assignee, although the word "assigns" does not appear in the lease; but when the covenant relates to something to be done on the land demised, as to build a fence thereon, it does not pass to the assignee.* • The leading case on this subject is Spencer's Case, 1 Smith's L. Q. 68 et seq. Plaintiffs state : Form No. 199. BY HEIRS OF GRANTEE. 1 and 2. (Allege sale and warranty.) 3. That the said C D afterwards, and on the same day, entered into, and was possessed of, said premises, and afterwards, on the day of the said C D died, whereupon the said pre 18 at mises and his estate therein descended to the plaintiffs as children and co-heirs of the said C D, deceased; and that they afterwards, on the same day, entered into, and were possessed of, said premises, until ousted and dispossessed as hereinafter mentioned. (Set forth breach, &c., as in preceding forms.) Plaintiff states : Form No. 200. BY DEVISEE Of Grantee. 1. & 2. [Allege sale and warranty.] 3. That the said E F afterwards, and on the same day, entered into, and was possessed of, said premises; and afterwards, on the day of made his last will and testament, and thereby, amongst other things, devised the said premises to the plaint 18 at iff; and afterwards, on the said E F died leaving such will, 4. That on the day of and admitted to probate, in the Court of 5. That thereupon the plaintiff entered into possession of the said premises, and was possessed thereof until ousted and dispossessed as hereinafter mentioned (set forth breach, &c., as in preceding forms). Form No. 201. WARRANTY AS TO QUANTITY. Plaintiff states: day of 1. That by an instrument in writing, bearing date the 18, the defendant sold to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff bought from the defendant (here describe the land), at the price of ; and by the said instrument the defendant warranted the Rs. |