GOSTHO BEHARY GHOSH Vs. ROHINI GOWALINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal in a suit in ejectment. The plaintiffs claimed title as legal representatives under the Hindu law of inheritance of one Kailash. The defendant was a concubine of Kailash who claimed title by virtue of a kobala executed by Kailash.

(2.) Both the lower Courts have found that the kobala was genuine. The Munsif, however, held that no consideration passed and that the transaction evidence by the kobala was a paper transaction which was probably brought about by the importunities of Kailash's mistress. There is no evidence, however, we are informed, of any pressure having been put by Kailash's mistress upon Kailash to execute the document in question. It was only a suggestion of the Munsif and it was not based on evidence.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge has not come to any distinct finding whether consideration passed or not, but the consideration stated in the document was only Rs. 49. He is of opinion that the kobala which is registered is sufficient to pass the ownership of the property covered by it to the vendee. The proposition of law underlying this statement is laid down too broadly by the Subordinate Judge. The mere registration of a deed of transfer is not sufficient in itself to convey title. We need only refer to the decision of this Court in Mauladan V/s. Rughunandan Pershad Singh 27 C. 7.