RAJA RAM SINGH Vs. SHEO MANGAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Defendant's second appeal in a suit for possession over a house except for a room thereof. The Plaintiff's case was that the Defendants were permitted to live in the house except for that one room, about 2 years before the suit, that the Plaintiff's wanted the house back but the Defendants did not vacate and even removed some goods valued at Rs. 250/ -in respect of which a decree for recovery of the amount was also claimed.

(2.) THE Defendants pleaded that the house had been given by the Plaintiffs to Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on the occasion of their marriage by way of Kanyadan.

(3.) MR . Radha Krishna learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that it was not a case of the gift, and therefore, Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act did not apply and that being so a registered instrument was not necessary to effectuate the transfer. At any rate, learned Counsel urged, there was an ante -nuptial agreement between the parties in pursuance of which the transfer of the property was made at the time of the marriage and accordingly the Plaintiffs are now estopped from claiming possession, and in support of this he relied upon the case of Pran Mohan Das v. Hart Mohan Das : AIR 1925 Cal. 856. It was held in that case 'that on a transfer made on the basis of an ante -nuptial agreement there is good and valid consideration for the same and the donee having been put in possession and haying held such possession for a number of years, he is justified in resisting the claim of the donor on the principle of the doctrine of the part performance of a contract and the donor is estopped from urging that the transfer is invalid as not being evidenced by a registered deed.' In the present case, however the alleged ante -nuptial agreement was not in writing and consequently the doctrine of part performance of a contract enshrined in Section 53 -A of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be applied.