' Suit of the respondents for possession of a plot was decreed against the petitioner by repelling his claim for payment of costs of improvements. His plea having been repelled by the learned District Judge by affirming the trial Court's findings that the construction raised by him on the plot in dispute could not have been made by him bona fide, he has now come up to this Court in revision.
2. The solitary argument of the learned counsel is that this case falls under section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act and the Courts below have erred in disposing of the plea with the finding that a mere submission of form for transfer of property did not relegate the petitioner to the status of a transferee, because in fact transfer in his name was made by the D.S.C. in consequence of the order of remand passed by the Settlement Commissioner on 8-2-1972 and that even though that order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was subsequently set aside, yet, he does not thereby lose the status of having been a one-time transferee of the property. This contention has no merit because the foregoing is not the only pre-condition for the application of section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act and it had also to be shown that the construction itself was raised by him bona fide at a time when he was the transferee of the relevant property. This condition stands clearly negated by the statement of the petitioner himself made as D.W. 3 wherein he has categorically stated that he raised the construction on the plot in dispute in the year 1962, after the plan for the house had been sanctioned by the Municipal Committee. Furthermore, the claim for payment of compensation for improvements can be thereunder made by a transferee who may have been subsequently evicted and only after his eviction. It is conceded by the learned counsel that the petitioner is not such a person.
3. In view of the foregoing I do not find any merit in the Civil Revision which is accordingly dismissed in limine.