Skip to content


Sheikh Bahal Ud-dIn and ors. Vs. Rafaqat HusaIn and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in18Ind.Cas.451
AppellantSheikh Bahal Ud-dIn and ors.
RespondentRafaqat HusaIn and anr.
Excerpt:
contract act (ix of 1872), section 11 - minor--conveyance--whether valid conveyance may be in favour of minor's name. - .....name and will convey a perfectly good title to the minor, provided the transferor has a good title to convey. that being so, the title was clearly in khusal-ud-din who had the right to bring this suit.2. the only other question is whether the defendant first party was entitled to a notice to quit. the judgments of the courts below show clearly that the defendant first party was in possession as a trespasser, inasmuch as he claimed to hold the house by virtue not of any lease bat by permission of a third party who had no title to that house. he could, therefore, be ejected without notice.3. the plaintiff does not now ask for mesne profits.4. the decrees of the courts below must be set aside and a decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs for possession of the property claimed with.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the District Judge of Bhagalpur confirming that of the Munsif dismissing the plaintiff's suit for possession. Plaintiffs sued to recover possession of a house from, the defendant first party on the ground that the defendant first party was a trespasser. They sued by virtue of a conveyance of the house to them in the name of the plaintiff Khusal-ud-din by the defendant 2nd party. Both the Courts have held that because Khusal-ud-din, who is named in the conveyance as the purchaser, was a minor at the date of that conveyance, the contract of sale was absolutely void. This view of law is clearly incorrect. It is perfectly open to a person who owns property to convey that property to a minor and the conveyance may be made in the minor's name and will convey a perfectly good title to the minor, provided the transferor has a good title to convey. That being so, the title was clearly in Khusal-ud-din who had the right to bring this suit.

2. The only other question is whether the defendant first party was entitled to a notice to quit. The judgments of the Courts below show clearly that the defendant first party was in possession as a trespasser, inasmuch as he claimed to hold the house by virtue not of any lease bat by permission of a third party who had no title to that house. He could, therefore, be ejected without notice.

3. The plaintiff does not now ask for mesne profits.

4. The decrees of the Courts below must be set aside and a decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs for possession of the property claimed with costs in all the three Courts.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //