1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a house which formerly belonged to one Musammat Najm-un-nissa. Musammat Najm-un-nissa executed what purports to be a deed of sale of the house in favour of the defendant respondent, Hikmat Ullah Khan, her sister's son, on the 2nd of January 1902. She died on the 7th of April 1904, and the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the plaintiff, who is the brother and heir of Musammat Najm-un-nissa, to recover possession of the house.
2. Both Courts have dismissed the claim and this appeal has been preferred.
3. The learned Vakil for the appellant contends that no consideration for the sale of the property passed and that consequently the alleged deed of conveyance must be deemed to be absolutely void, and that he is entitled, therefore, to recover possession, despite the execution of this document. The learned District Judge finds that the document in question was a bona fide document but, he says, except possibly Rs. 1,500, the consideration was not really paid to the Musammat. This finding seems to us to conclude the appeal. If the transaction in question was a bona fide transaction, then the mere fact that the consideration for the sale was not paid would not render the document absolutely void. It may be that the heirs of Musammat Najm-un-nissa may have a right to recover from the purchaser the purchase money which he agreed to pay and did not pay but the fact that the purchase money or any part of it has not been paid would not entitle the heir of Najm-un-nissa to ignore the conveyance and claim possession of the property as if there had been no conveyance to the defendant respondent. On this finding of the learned District Judge that the deed represents a bona fide transaction, this appeal, in our opinion, fails. We dismiss it with costs.