The case established the principle that a conveyance may be genuine but not intended as a real sale, and that successive transactions may be deemed fictitious without consideration. It also highlighted the limitations of a mortgagee's rights when the title remains with the original owner.

JUDGMENT

1. The subject matter of the litigation which has culminated in this appeal is landed property situated in the eastern suburb of this city The property belonged originally to one Mather Ostagar whose name appears in the following pedigree:

                         MATHER OSTAGAR=                      Musammat Karimannessa.                               |                            Alefjan                        m. Lutfar Rahman                               |                 ----------------------------                 |             |            |          Mujibar Rahman     Asia         Sufia.                            m. Abdul,                            Kader.

2. On the 14th January 1857 Ostagar transferred the property to his wife, Karimannessa, in lieu of dower, by, a document described as a hiba-bil-ewaz (gift for an exchange). On the 26th June 1899 a conveyance of the property is said to have been executed by Karimannessa to her grand-daughters Asia, and Sufia. Whether his deed was in fact executed by Kar man nessa and, if so, whether it was voluntarily executed by her, are matters in controversy in this litigation. It is sufficient to mention at this stage that the document was registered on the 26th July 1899. On the 22nd March 1900 Asia was, on her application, appointed by the District Judge as guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, to administer the estate of her infant sister, Sufia, during her minority, which,' it was stated in the certificate, would continue until the 13th December 1906. On the 16th May, 1900, Asia applied to the District Judge for permission to sell the half share of the infant in the disputed property. On the 19th June 1900 Karimannessa filed a petition of objection, stating that neither Sufia nor the petitioner had title to the house and land and that Sufia was not an infant when Asia was appointed her guardian. The District Judge overruled the opposition and granted permission to Asia to sell the property on behalf of her ward. On the 14th September 1900 Asia informed the District Judge that she had not been able to secure a purchaser and asked for permission to raise money by mortgage of the property. This application was granted. Subsequently, a purchaser was found and on the 22nd December 1900 the District Judge sanctioned a sale instead of a mortgage. These proceedings show that the transfer was effected with a view to pay marriage expenses, of the minor and debts and costs of litigation. A conveyance, which appears to have been drawn up on the 21st December 1900,in anticipation of the sanction of the District Judge, was thereupon executed by Asia for herself and as guardian of her sister, Sufia, and the entire interest of the two sisters was transferred to the purchaser, Muhammad Manatumbi, the brother do Abdul Kader, (the husband of Asia). The conveyance was registered on the 3rd January 1901.The endorsement of the Registrar shows that the registration took place in the very house which stands on the disputed land where the two ladies resided. The oral evidence makes it abundantly clear that the old lady Karimannessa also lived in the same house at that time. The property thus purchased by Muhammad Manatumbi was subject to the payment of Government revenue. He accordingly paid such revenue to the Collector on the 13th March 1902, though, even after his purchase the names of his vendors were registered by the Collector on the 13th September 1901, and on the 24th March, 1902, he paid a further sum to the Collector as redemption fee, so that the land might thenceforth be revenue-free in perpetuity. On the 5th April 1902 the Collector issued the usual redemption certificate to Manatumbi. Meanwhile, Manatumbi had, on the 6th November 1901, taken a kabuliyat from one Golam Rahman, who occupied a part of the premises as tenant. The evidence further leaves no room for doubt that Manatumbi got his name registered in the books of the Calcutta Corporation the rate bills were the