Mohit finds a ring of Shardha and sells it to a third person Prachi who purchases it for value and in good faith. Whether Shardha can file a suit to recover the ring? Advise with cogent reasons.

Yes, Shardha can file a suit to recover the ring from Prachi. Section 27 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930 states about sale by person not the owner. According to this section, subject to the provisions of this Act and of any other law for the time being in force, where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller's authority to sell. The general rule is that only the owner of goods can sell the goods. Conversely, the sale of an article by a person who is not or who has not the authority of the owner, gives no title to the buyer. The rule is expressed by the maxim: "Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet" i.e. no one can pass a better title than he himself has. As applied to the sale of goods, the rule means that a seller of goods cannot give a better title to the buyer than he himself possesses. In the present case, Mohit found Shardha's ring, meaning he was merely a finder and not the owner. He had no title to the ring. When Mohit sold the ring to Prachi, even though Prachi purchased it for value and in good faith, Mohit could not transfer a better title than he himself possessed. Shardha, being the true owner, was not precluded by her conduct from denying Mohit's authority to sell. Therefore, the true owner, Shardha, can file a suit to recover the ring from Prachi. Mohit having no title to the ring could pass none the better title.