The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of possession under Ext. P.1 and the status of the plaintiff as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

1. This appeal arises from a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of immovable property with mesne profits. The suit was decreed by the trial court, and defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal.

2. The property which forms the subject matter of the suit comprises of 50 cents obtained by the third defendant under Ext. P.1 dated 1141956 from her parents, defendants 1 and 2, the first defendant being the mother and the second defendant the father of the third defendant. The remaining 11/4 cents were purchased in the name of the third defendant later under Ext. P. 2 dated 9 21960. Ext. P.1 purported to convey 50 cents of land and a building to the third defendant in lieu of streedhanam promised to her at the time of her marriage to the fourth defendant. The whole area was sold to the plaintiff, under Ext. P. 7 dated 22 81960. According to the plaintiff, defendants 3 and 4 resided in the suit property for some time after the marriage and thereafter they left for Kayamkulam, the native place of the fourth defendant, entrusting management of the property to defendants 1 and 2. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that after the date of the sale in her favour, she was in possession for six or seven days when she was obstructed from enjoyment of the property by defendants 1 and 2. She therefore filed the suit for declaration of her title and recovery of possession of property.

3. The main contentions of defendants 1 & 2 were that the third defendant was promised a streedhanam of Rs. 4,000/-at the time of her marriage, that Ext. P.1 was executed as security for the fulfilment of the promise and to evidence the same, that the original deed was not handed over to the third defendant, that it was surreptitiously removed by her from the possession of the first defendant, that Ext. P.1 was not intended to come into effect nor had it come into effect, and that in any event it has to be treated only as a gift pursuant to which possession has not passed. It was further contended that the third defendant and her vendee, the plaintiff, had no right to the property and that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- out of the sthreedhanam promised had been paid to defendants 3 and 4. According to defendants 1 and 2 the building in the property was erected by them after the date of Ext. P.1.

4. The court below found that Ext. P.1 was a deed of sale and not a gift, that it had come into effect, that possession had not passed to the third defendant, that the plaintiff was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, that the third defendant was competent to sell the property and that the plaintiff was entitled to the declaration prayed for as well as recovery of possession with mesne profits.

5. The first point urged on behalf of the appellants is that Ext. P.1 cannot be viewed as a deed of sale. It was pointed out that it was executed out of love and affection and that it would not come within the definition of 'sale' in the Transfer of Property Act. "Sale" according to S.54 of the Transfer Property Act "is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised". Ext. P.1 does not say that it is a transfer of property for any sum fixed as price. There is a 'statement that the property is worth Rs. 10,000 - This has to be taken as having been inserted only for the purpose of payment of stamp duty and registration fees. The mere fact that sthreedhanam was promised at the time of the marriage will not make a subsequent deed of transfer for the sthreedhanam promised, a sale. The learned judge relied on the decision reported in 24 T. L J. 265 which, in our opinion, has no application to the facts of this case. Ext. P.1 was executed out of natural love & affection, and this cannot but be treated as a deed of gift.

6. The next question is whether possession passed under Ext. P.1. The learned judge held that possession had not passed. We are unable to agree with this conclusion. Ext. P.1 directed