In order to claim the benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the transferee must fulfill all four conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in Nathulal v. Phoolchand, including the existence of a written agreement signed by the transferor or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty.

1. - The instant first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1980 passed by the learned District Judge, Merta in civil suit No. 5/73.

2. The facts of the present case lies in a shorl compass. Shri Kamalchand, since dead, and his son Ratanchand filed the above suit against the appellant and his brother Shri Jagdish, respondent No. 3 on the ground inter-alia that the plaintiff Kamalchand purchased disputed land from Shri Mahaphool Khan for Rs. 2,500/- by a registered sale-deed on 30.8.1950. It was then stated that Shri Mahphool Khan handed over the Patta of the said land (Ex. 3) to Shri Kamalchand at the time of the sale. lt was then alleged that Kamalchand got the patta renewed (Ex. 1) in his name and in the name of his son Shri Ratanchand and, therefore, it was alleged that Shri Ratanchand had been made a plaintiff in the above suit. It was further averred that the above land was delivered to the defendants in September, 1987 for temporary use on their request and when the plaintiff demanded the possession of the land from the defendants, they refused and instead of handing over possession sent a notice alleging that they are in possession in part performance as contemplated under Section 53-A of the transfer of Property Act.

3. After receiving the aforesaid notice from the defendants the plaintiff immediately revoked the licence and possession of the disputed land was demanded. After service of summons the defendants contested the above case by filing a joint written statement. Practically the defendant-appellants denied the plaint allegation. They also denied in their written statement that they had obtained possession of the land in dispute by way of licence. It was also stated in their written statement that Kamalchand put the defendant No. 1 Gangaram into possession of the disputed land in pursuance of the oral agreement and as such the defendants had set up a plea of part performance as contemplated under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the learned District Judge, Merta framed the following issues :(Vernacular Matter Omitted)

5. After framing all the aforesaid issues the attention of the parties were focused by he learned District Judge to adduce evidence in support of their respective claim. Both the plaintiff as well as the defendants were afforded an opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence on record. After analytical discussion of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned District Judge came to this conclusion that the defendants have a right title over the disputed land. Therefore, he decreed the suit for possession as well as mesne profit of Rs. 1800/- and further directed to pay mesne profit @ Rs. 90/- per month. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of possession and mesne profit the defendant-appellant had come up before this Court by filing the present first appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Merta.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant as well as Counsel for the plaintiff-respondents. I have gone throgh the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.

7. A close scrutiny of the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge go long way to prove that the finding recorded by the learned District Judge regarding the title of the plaintiff-respondents is based on oral and documentray evidence on record. The learned District Judge has given cogent and convicting reasons in support of his finding regarding title of the plaintiff-respondents.

8. I am in full agreement of the finding recorded District Judge. It is important to mention that one brother of defendant-appellant has submitted to the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge. The only argument raised by the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant is that he is coming in possession in pursuance of the oral agre