1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for recovery of possession of certain land. The plaintiff's case was that this land belonged to them and that in 1303 they left the village and made it over to the defendant intrust. The defend-ant's case was that the plaintiffs in 1300 executed an unregistered conveyance of this land for Rs. 60 in his favour. The plaintiffs remained in actual possession of the land as under tenants until 1303, when they relinquished the land to the defendant. The suit was decreed by the Munsif, but on appeal the learned District Judge of Dinajpore accepted the case of the defendant and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appeal.
2. On behalf of the appellants it has been argued that there was no such delivery of the property as would amount to a sale inasmuch as the sale purports to have been made in 1300, but the possession was not delivered until 1303. Bat it appears to us that there is nothing in this contention. A sale can be effected by delivery of property when the value of the property is less than Rs. 100 and it is quite clear that actual physical possession was delivered in 1303. The fact that a conveyance had been executed and consideration paid sometime before would not weaken the effect of this delivery of possession.
3. Secondly, it has been argued that the unregistered conveyance was not admissible in evidence. The learned District Judge, how-ever, has only used this document as evidence of what the intention of the parties was in transferring the possession from the plaintiffs to the defendant.
4. The learned pleader for the appellants has relied on the decision in the case of Makhan Lal Pal v. Bunku Behary Ghose 19 C. 623. All that was decided in that case was that a sale of property less than Rs. 100 in value can only be effected either by a registered instrument or by delivery of possession. There is nothing in that ruling which lays down that when a sale has been effected by delivery of possession an unregistered document which may unnecessarily have been executed cannot be referred to as evidence of the intention of the parties. The view taken by the learned District Judge is warranted by the opinion of Mr. Justice Baverley in Gunga Narain Gope v. Kali Churn Goala 22 C. 179 and in the appeal that was preferred against that decision it does not appear that the correctness of his opinion on this point was ever questioned.
5. Finally it has been argued that at the time when this unregistered conveyance was executed one of the plaintiffs was a minor and that, therefore, his interest in the property could not be sold. Bat the sale, as we have observed, was effected not by this conveyance, but by deli very of possession and at the time that the possession was delivered it appears that this plaintiff was grown up. This contention, therefore, also fails.
6. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.