JUDGMENT

Dunkley, J - The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit against the three defendants-respondents for the possession of a house and a house site, and be was successful in the original Court, but the decree of the Township Court was reversed en appeal by the Additional Judge of the District Court of Kyaukse. The first and second respondents, Ma Obn and Maung Yin Maung, are husband and wife, and the third respondent, Ma Lon is the sister of Ma Ohn. Ma Lon has never eon-tested the plaintiff, appellant's right to the possession of this house and site, It appears that for some time the house in question has been in the joint occupation of the three respondents. Their title was originally derived from one Venu Gopal. On 7th March 1927, Venu Gopal bought this house and site from one, Ma Thin by a registered deed, and then on 14th February 1932, Venu Gopal in his turn conveyed this property to Ma Lon only by an unregistered document. On 11th September 1933, Ma Lon executed a registered mortgage of this property for a sum of Rs. 200 to the appellant. The mortgage was a usufructuary mortgage, but so far the appellant has been unable to obtain possession of the property thereunder. The appellant further alleges that subsequent to this registered mortgage be purchased the property from Ma Lon by ah oral agreement; but be is, of course not permitted to prove this oral agreement for sale, and his suit must therefore be based upon the registered usufructuary mortgage.

2. Now, the answer of the respondents Ma Ohn and Maung Yin Maung, to the appellant's case was that they were owners of this property, and that they had purchased it by an oral agreement from this same Venu Gopal eight years prior to suit being brought. It seems quite, clear that their claim to have purchased the property from Venn Gopal at that time must be false, as Venu Gopal himself did not purchase it until 1927. Moreover all the title deeds of the property were in the possession of Ma Lon, and she handed them over to the appellant at the time that the usufructuary mortgage was created. The learned Additional District Judge has based his decision that the appellant is not entitled to the possession of the property on the case of Maung Ba v. Maung Kywe 1928 Rang. 124; but be has failed to notice that the decision in this case is really against his decision, for it was held there that a person who derives title to property on an unregistered document cannot eject a person in possession of the property who was not put in possession thereof by him or by his vendor. Now, the allegations set up by the respondents, Ma Ohn and Maung Yin Maung in this case are actually that they were put into possession by the vendor of the property to Ma Lon; and consequently this decision had no application to the facts before the learned Judge. He has overlooked the provisions of Section 53-A, T.P. Act, which were added by the Amending Act of 1929, and which in my opinion conclude this case in favour of the appellant. The relevant portion of this section, so far as this case is concerned, runs as follows:

...notwithstanding that the contract, though required to be registered, has not been registered or, where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the Jaw for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession.

3. There is no doubt of the fact that Ma Lon was in possession of this house and site under the unregistered deed of sale executed in her favour by Venu Gopal, It is urged on behalf of Ma Ohn and Maung Yin Maung that the requirement of the first clause of Section 53A, viz., that the contract must be by writing signed by the transferor, has not been complied with in this case because Ma Lon was in possession of the