( 1 ) IBNE Hasan appellant instituted a suit against Latafat Husain and Musammat Mehtab (wife of Latafat Husain) on the allegations that the disputed house bearing municipal number 1676 situated in Bhind was his property, but the first defendant executed a gift deed in favour of the second defendant on 1-2-1951 in respect of the northern portion of the house, which gift was void and ineffective as against the plaintiff. After disclosing the source of his title the plaintiff claimed decree for declaration of Ms title, for possession and for cancellation of the gift deed. During the pendency of the suit Latafat Husain died.

( 2 ) THE defence was that the plaintiff was the owner only of the southern portion, which had been given by way of gift, but not ot the northern portion. Both the Courts dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that at no time had possession been delivered of the northern portion to the plaintiff, nor was there any registered sale deed in his favour.

( 3 ) IT Is an undisputed fact that after the gift of 1931 of the southern portion, when Ibne Husain started construction of the house one Banarasi Das came in his way and on the basis of a mortgage deed Ex. P. 1 dated 24-6-1928 he claimed that the whole house had been mortgaged in his favour and as such Latatat Husain could not make a gift of any portion oi the house to Ibne'hasan. The mortgage deed was for Rs. 42/ -. Ibne Hasan then paid the mortgage money due to Benarsi Das and on 25-5-1932 Benarasidas made the following endorsement on that deed: "latafat Hussain Ne Ibne Hasan Se Mujhko Dilaya. " Then there is another endorsement below this endorsement in which Latafat Hussain wrote as follows: "bilewaz Rs. 42/- Benama Imroze Se Qabza Ibne Hasan Ka Karadiya. Ab Mujhko Ya Mere Warisan Ko Taluq Mere Makan Se Nahin Raha. " One ot the attesting witnesses to this second endorsement Ex. P. 3 is Benarsi Das himself.

( 4 ) THERE can be no doubt from this that (1) the whole house, that is to say, both the northern and the southern portions were mortgaged with Benarsidas for Rs. 42/- under mortgage deed dated 26-6-1928 (Ex. P. 1), (2) that the whole house was redeemed on payment of mortgage money paid by Ibne Hussain and (3) that on the same date, that is, 25-5-1932, Latatat Hussain sold the whole house to Ibne Hasan by the second endorsement (Ext. P. 3) on the back of the mortgage deed.

( 5 ) AFTER hearing both the sides I am clear in my mind that there was no legal detect in the sale and that Ibne Hasan acquired a valid title on 25-5-1932 in respect of both the portions ot the house. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act was inapplicable because in 1932 there was no Transfer of Property Act in the former Gwalior State within which territory the suit property was situate. It is urged by Shri Bhagwan Swaroop that the principles contained in the Transfer of Property Act had been adapted in the Gwalior State. This argument is too late in the day. The Transfer of Property Act contained provisions of two kinds -some substantive, while others procedural, and it is a mistake to suppose that all the provisions ot the Transfer of Property Act have for their foundation justice, equity and good conscience. This is laid down in Namdeo v. Narmadabai, 1953 SCR 1009: (AIR 1953 SC 228 ).

( 6 ) ACCORDING to its ordinary acceptation there are only three requisites to complete a transfer by sale:

(1) One person must agree to transfer his ownership to another person and that other person must agree to accept such a transfer, (2) a price must be paid or agreed to be paid by the latter to the former, and (3) Both persons must be competent to contract. It is stated in 55 Corpus Juris 36 that

"sale" in legal nomenclature, is a term of precise legal import, both at law and in equity, and has a well defined legal signification, and has been said to mean, at all times, a contract between parties to give and to pass rights of property for money, which the buyer pays or promises to pay to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document