A transferee who purchases property from an ostensible owner, after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had the power to make the transfer, and who acts in good faith, acquires a good title to the property as against the true owner, under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. The appellant in the present R.S.A. No.66 of 1981 were the transferee-defendants in the trial and they have filed the present R.S.A., which has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 25th November, 1980 passed by the Court of Shri H.S. Bakhshi, Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur, who also dismissed the appeal of the present appellant by affirming the Judgment and decree dated 5th November 1979 passed in a suit for possession filed by Smt. Bachni alias Bachan Kaur and Smt. Giano alias Jito, daughters of Surat Singh of village Taragarh, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Bachni and Smt. Giano, contesting respondents Nos. 1 and 2, filed, a suit for .possession of the land measuring 21 Kanals 16 Marias, fully described in the head-note of the plaint, which land at one point of time was owned by Surat Singh son of Bhagwan Singh, their father. At the time of the death of said Surat Singh, his widow Smt. Harnam Kaur, Smt. Bachni alias Bachan Kaur and Smt. Giano alias Jito, plaintiffs, Smt. Mohinder Kaur defendant No. 2, and Surjit Singh defendant No.4, were alive, The case set up by the plaintiffs-Smt. Bachan and Smt. Jito was that their father executed a valid will in respect of his entire properties, including the suit land, on 9th April, 1973 in their favour, as they used to serve the deceased Surat Singh. On the basis of the will they are entitled to the possession, the defendants, including the present transferee-appellants, were requested several times to deliver the possession of the suit land, but they refused to do so. In the alternative, it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that in case their will is not proved, they are entitled to claim possession of one-half share of the land in dispute, on the basis of natural succession, as Suit. Harnam Kaur, their mother, died after the death of their father Surat Singh. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant No. 1 Surjit Singh, who is their brother, alleged that deceased Surat Singh executed some will in his favour, but they have denied the factum of the validity of the said will. Defendants Nos. 3 to II claimed that they had purchased the portion of the suit land from defendant No. 1 Surjit Singh, but this fact is denied by the plaintiffs, and as such defendants Nos. 3 to 11 are in illegal possession of the property.

3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Contest was given only by defendants Nos. 3 to 11, while defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not file any written statement in spite of service. Stand taken by defendants Nos. 3 to 11 was that land was owned by Surat Singh. He did not execute any will dated 9.4.1973 as propounded by the plaintiffs. If there is any will, that is forged and fictitious, because the relations of the plaintiffs were strained with Surat Singh. The husband of Smt. Bachni plaintiff forcibly abducted Smt. Giano alias Jito, plaintiff No.2, in the year 1970 and kept her in his house as his keep against the wishes of Surat Singh, who died of this shock. It is further alleged that after the abduction of Smt. Giano alias Jito, the deceased Surat-Singh filed an application under Section 100 Cr.P.C. for the recovery of his daughter Smt. Giano. In such circumstances the question of execution of the alleged will in favour of the plaintiffs did not arise on account of strained relations. Moreover, Surat Singh during his life-time already executed a registered valid will of his movable and immovable property situated in village Taragarh and Balewal in favour of his son Surjit Singh, defendant No. 1, and mutation of the said land was sanction in his favour on the basis of that registered will dated 13.12.1974. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the said mutation in the Court of the Collector and the same was dismissed and it was held that the will relied upon by the plaintiffs is unnatural and not genuine. Defendant No.l Surjit Singh became the owner of the property on the basis of the regis