9911796707
TMI Blog1926 (3) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of possession over a plot of land, No. 98, situate in village Firozepur, District Gonda. The suit was brought on the allegation that Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 sold the plot in suit to Defendant No. 1 for ₹ 150, on the 2nd of December 1920, and that about a year later, that is on the 25th November 1921, Defendant No. 2 executed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion that possession had, after the execution of the sale deed of the 2nd December 1920, remained with Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and that Defendant No. 1 had never been in possession of the land sold to him. In consequence he held that no possession could have been delivered by Defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff of the property gifted to the latter. He found that neither actual possession nor construc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argued that the transaction evidenced by the deed of the 25th November 1921 partook of the nature of a sale transaction. I am not prepared to accept that view. I am aware that there are cases where it has been held that where a gift is made by a Muhammadan in lieu of something which has a monetary value the transaction may be considered by way of sale. There are also certain cases which lay down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
