The word "transfer" in Section 13 of the C. P. Tenancy Act, 1920, covers all cases of physical transfers of possession and is not restricted to transfers which are valid according to the Transfer of Property Act or any other law.

( 1 ) THE appellant Mahabir Prasad preferred this appeal under the Letters Patent against the decision of Tare J. in Second Appeal No. 163 of 1954.

( 2 ) THE dispute relates to certain occupancy fields, which were held by two brothers Kaliram and Maniram jointly. In the year 1939 they sold them by two separate sale-deeds (Ex. P-l and Ex. P-2) to the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 1,260/- and Rs. 73/- respectively. These sale-deeds are not registered. Respondent Samaroo is the son of Kaliram. After the sale to the appellant, Samaroo and Mst. Ghasin, widow of Maniram, applied to the Revenue Courts under Section 13 of the C. P. Tenancy Act, 1920, for being placed in possession of the suit lands on the allegation that the sales in question were in contravention of Section 12 ibid. Mst. Ghasin did not prosecute the proceedings, but Samaroo fought the matter upto the Board of Revenue. The Sub-Divisional Officer, the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner and finally the Board of Revenue all held that Samaroo was entitled to possession of the fields. Their possession was accordingly delivered to him on 12-11-1949, i. e. ten years after the dispute started. During all this period, the appellant had paid the rent to the landlord and had continued in possession of the fields.

( 3 ) HAVING lost possession on account of the order of the Board of Revenue, the appellant filed the present suit for possession of the field against Surname. His claim was decreed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court maintained the decree. However, in second appeal the learned Single Judge reversed the decision of the Courts below and dismissed the suit.

( 4 ) THE trial Court and the first appeal Court relied upon the decision in Chindhu Sukal v. Dadu Ambar, ILR (1945) Nag 433: (AIR 1945 Nag 119), to hold that if a transfer made by an occupancy tenant is invalid, a suit for ejecting the transferee lies in the Civil Court. The learned Single Judge doubted the correctness of that decision and held that the revenue Courts had jurisdiction. The learned Judges of the Division Bench before whom the Letters Patent appeal came up for hearing have referred the case to the Full Bench to consider whether Chindhu Sukal's case ILR (1945) Nag 433: (AIR 1945 Nag: 119) was correctly decided. The learned counsel for the parties, however, requested that the case should be fully heard and decided on merits, as answering the reference alone could not conclude the matter. Accordingly, we have heard them on all points arising in the case. ( 5 ) SO far as the transfer evidenced by the second sale-deed (Ex. P-2) is concerned, it is for a consideration of Rs. 73/- only. Such a transfer can be effected orally under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and as possession of the fields was delivered to the appellant in pursuance thereof, it is valid in law. It was, therefore, conceded before us that the order of the Revenue Courts was within jurisdiction and could not be assailed in respect of the fields covered by the sale-deed Ex. P-2.

( 6 ) SO far as the first sale-deed (Ex. P-1) is concerned, it was for a consideration of Rs. 1,260/- and yet unregistered. Consequently the question arises whether it was a transfer in contravention of Section 12 within the meaning of Section 13 of the C. P. Tenancy Act and could therefore be avoided in the Revenue Courts by Samaroo. In Chindhu Sukal's case ILR (1945) Nag 433: (AIR 1945 Nag 119) (supra) it has been held that the transfer of an occupancy holding for Rs. 100/- or more, if effected by an unregistered document, is null and void and does not therefore contravene Section 12 of the C. P. Tenancy Act. The remedy of the landlord to eject the transferee, in such a case, is to file a civil suit, and he cannot maintain an application under Section 13 of the C. P. Tenancy Act. In deciding the case, reference was made to the observations of Stanyon A. J. C. in Ganeshdas v. Shankar, 8 Nag LR 22, namely "in such a cas