DEOKI NANDAN, J.

1. This is a Defendant's second appeal in a suit for possession over a house except for a room thereof. The Plaintiff's case was that the Defendants were permitted to live in the house except for that one room, about 2 years before the suit, that the Plaintiff's wanted the house back but the Defendants did not vacate and even removed some goods valued at Rs. 250/-in respect of which a decree for recovery of the amount was also claimed.

2. The Defendants pleaded that the house had been given by the Plaintiffs to Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on the occasion of their marriage by way of Kanyadan.

3. The trial court found that there was no valid transfer of the property in law and that the Defendants were liable to yield possession in favour of the Plaintiff's and also liable to pay Re. 1/-per month as mesne profits, pendente lite and future, and decreed the suit accordingly. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court's decree.

4. Mr. Radha Krishna learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that it was not a case of the gift, and therefore, Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act did not apply and that being so a registered in