SHEIKH BAHAL UD-DIN Vs. RAFAQAT HUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the District Judge of Bhagalpur confirming that of the Munsif dismissing the plaintiff s suit for possession. Plaintiffs sued to recover possession of a house from, the defendant first party on the ground that the defendant first party was a trespasser. They sued by virtue of a conveyance of the house to them in the name of the plaintiff Khusal-ud-din by the defendant 2nd party. Both the Courts have held that because Khusal-ud-din, who is named in the conveyance as the purchaser, was a minor at the date of that conveyance, the contract of sale was absolutely void. This view of law is clearly incorrect. It is perfectly open to a person who owns property to convey that property to a minor and the conveyance may be made in the minor s name and will convey a perfectly good title to the minor, provided the transferor has a good title to convey. That being so, the title was clearly in Khusal-ud-din who had the right to bring this suit.

(2.) The only other question is whether the defendant first party was entitled to a notice to quit. The judgments of the Courts below show clearly that the defendant first party was in possession as a trespasser, inasmuch as he claimed to hold the house by virtue not of any lease bat by permission of a third party who had no title to that house. He could, therefore, be ejected without notice.

(3.) The plaintiff does not now ask for mesne profits.