KISHNI Vs. RATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been referred to a Division Bench because of a conflict of views between two Bombay rulings reported in Putla Bai v. Mahadu, ILR 33 Bom 107 and Panchappa v. Sanganbasawa, ILR 24 Bom 89.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to this appeal are not in controversy. One Bhupat, defendant No. 4, sold a house to the plaintiffs by means of a registered sale-deed. Having purchased the house, the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the house and for damages against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the allegations that they were in illegal possession of it, that they had caused some damages to the wall of the house, and that the plaintiffs had suffered a loss of Rs. 100/-. The plaintiffs also claimed Rs. 2/- per month for illegal use and occupation of the house by the defendants.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit on the ground that Bhupat had no right to sell the property to the plaintiffs as he had been given in adoption by his mother to one Chhajju, and having been adopted into another family he had lost all interests in this property. He, therefore, could rot execute the' sale-deed in favour of the plain-tilt's. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit for the recovery of possession over the house and also awarded Rs. 24/8/- as damages caused to the house. Future damages were also decreed at the rate of -/8/- per month for use and occupation of the house. The defendants appealed and the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on a finding that Bhupat had been validly adopted into another family, and consequently he did not pass good title to the plaintiffs.