PRAN MOHAN DAS Vs. HARI MOHAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 arises out of a suit brought by the plantiff for the recovery of possession of a brick-built house. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif but has been decreed on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge. The facts are shortly these:---The house in question admittedly belonged to the plaintiff and was admittedly in possession of the defendant No. 2 and her husband, until it was sold by defendant No. 2 to the defendants Nos 3 to 5 by a registered kobala in 1916. The plaintiff's case is that he permitted Defendant No.2, his daughter, and her husband to occupy the house as a matter of favour and their possession was permissive and as they have sold the house to the defendants Nos. 3 to 5 he has brought this suit for recovery of possession of the house with mesne profits. The defence of the defendant No. 2 was that the plaintiff promised to make a gift of the house to the defendant No. 2 as her dower at the time of her marriage and the husband of defendant No. 2 agreed to marry her on such a promise having been made by her father; that she obtained the house as a gift from her father in 1907, and she and her husband possessed the same in that right until they sold the house to defendants Nos.1 and 3, 4 and 5 for Rs. 401 by a registered kobala in the year 1916 executed by defendant No. 2 and that since then the purchasers are in possession of the house. The defence of the other defendants is the same and they further pleaded that since their purchase they have made considerable improvements in the house.

(2.) It appears that al though defendant No. 2 was put in possession of the house after her father made a gift of it to her, no registered conveyance was executed by the plaintiff who it is alleged executed an unregistered deed of gift in favour of Defendant No. 2 in 1909.

(3.) The learned Munsif found that "the plaintiff agreed to give the house to Charubala (defendant No. 2) and that this induced the bride-groom's party to agree to this marriage" and overruling the objection of the plaintiff that the transfer was invalid as there was no registered deed, gave effect to the transfer and dismissed the suit.