FAKIR CHAND Vs. KEWAL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts found are that Manga, who was owner of a house in a village, died leaving a widow who held possession for some years. On the death of the widow, the plaintiffs became entitled to the house as zemindars of the village, Manga having left no heirs besides his widow. The defendant-appellant took a sale-deed of the house, including the site, from two persons who admittedly had no title. Having got into possession, he pulled down the old house and built a new one in its place. The Courts below have given the plaintiffs a decree for possession of the land and house. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the defendant-appellant should be allowed to remove the materials of the house.

(2.) Neither in his written statement nor in his grounds of appeal to the lower Appellate Court did the defendant-appellant claim to be entitled to remove the materials of the house, but the point seems to have been taken at the hearing in the lower Appellate Court.

(3.) The case is, of course, clearly distinguishable from, cases in which a person buys-a house in a village from a man who has no power to transfer it, but who is the owner of the materials? In such cases a decree for possession is given against the transferee, but he is given an opportunity of removing the materials. Nor, on the facts found, is the case covered by Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act.