AMMANI Vs. JAGANNATHA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4th defendant, the appellant, relied on an oral sale on the 4th May 1901, the date of her unregistered document, Exhibit I, executed by the 1st defendant; the plaintiff on a registered sale-deed, Exhibit A, executed on the 5th May 1908 by the 1st and 2nd defendants. The question is whether on the latter date the plaintiff s vendors had any title to convey; and the answer to it depends under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act on whether the 4th defendant s oral sale included a delivery of the property sold, that is, whether the 1st defendant placed the 4th defendant in possession.

(2.) The 4th defendant relied primarily on an alleged delivery to her of the property at the Monigar s house at the time of the execution of Exhibit I and her alleged enjoyment from that date. The learned District Judge has found some difficulty in applying the authorities he cited to these allegations. But their result seems to us plain, that proof of a formal delivery of the property by the seller is unnecessary, if there is proof that possession passed to the buyer and that it did so with the assent, express or implied, of the seller and in connection with and to give effect to the contract of sale.

(3.) In this case the 4th defendant relied on the delivery to her in the Monigar s house at the execution of Exhibit I and on enjoyment from its date or, in the alternative, on enjoyment from some later date as given in connection with the sale. Our attention has been called to the District Judge s observation that there is really no evidence that the 4th defendant obtained possession on the date of Exhibit I. But, as he also set out fully the evidence as to what happened in the Monigar s house and as to enjoyment, we understand him to mean only that there was no evidence of value. His conclusion on the former point is not stated distinctly. But it is clear from the tenor of his judgment that he concurred in the District Munsif s decision that the delivery in the Monigar s house (whatever its effect) and enjoyment from the date of Exhibit I were not proved.