MOTIBHAI JIJIBHAI Vs. DESAIBHAI GOKALBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case are shortly that one Chatur, being the registered Khatedar of certain unalienated lands which were subject to the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, executed a rajinama in the year 1904, in which he stated to the Mamlatdar that he had relinquished the khata of the Survey numbers in favour of Desaibhai Gokulbhai, and requested that the necessary mutation of flames should be made in the records. Desaibhai Gokujbhai, on the same day, namely, the nth August 1964, executed a kabulayat to the Mamlatdar undertaking to pay the land revenue that might become due from time to time in respect of that khata, and prayed that his name might be entered in the Government records as the registered Khatedar.

(2.) The lower appellate Court has found that Chatur intended to abandon all his interest in favour of Desaibhai, and that that was his intention in passing the rajinama. " Notwithstanding these transactions, Chatur, in 1911, purported to sell the same property to the plaintiffs by a registered sale-deed, and the plaintiffs filed this suit for the purpose of obtaining possession from Desaibhai. The plaint alleged that Chatur effected a mutation of names in favour of the defendant Desaibhai Gokulbhai to enable the latter to manage, and that Desaibhai s occupation was merely that of a manager on behalf of Chatur. That case, however, has not been made out in the lower Courts, and the facts found are, as already stated, that there was an abandonment by Chatur in favour of Desaibhai with the intention of Desaibhai becoming the owner of the property.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs that Desaibhai could not acquire the interest of Chatur in the property except by registered sale-deed, that the effect of the findings is a gift of immoveable property by Chatur to Desaibhai, since the application of the Transfer of Property Act to this Presidency, and that therefore, under Section 123, a registered document is essential.