Short Note : 1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a portion of land shown as ABCD in the map Ex. P-A after demolishing the house made therein by the defendants. The trial Court decreed the suit and that decree was affirmed on appeal by the District Court. Hence-this further appeal by the defendants 2. Held: The first appellate Court has negative the defendant's claim of protection under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act only on the ground that there was no evidence to prove that the transfer by Gajru and Pirmu in favour of the defendants was agreed to be for consideration or that the consideration had been paid. All the other ingredients required to attract section 53-A were, however, held to have been proved by the defendants. It has, therefore, to be seen at the very outset whether the first appellate Court was right in reaching this conclusion. In my opinion, the first appellate Court erred in holding that there was no evidence to prove that the agreement in defendant's favour was to effect a transfer for consideration. The defendant's plea was that transfer was in lieu of the total consideration of Rs.200 which had been paid on the date of the agreement itself, i.e. 14-3-61, and possession was delivered simultaneously by Gajru and Pirmu to the defendant. The fact that the defendant's house stands on that land is not in controversy. Gajru was examined as DW-1 and he expressly stated that he had made the agreement in plaintiff's favour after the house of defendant No 2 Ramprasad had been constructed on the disputed land; that he had made an agreement to sell the disputed land to defendant No.2 Ramprasad and that he and hi brother Pimou had executed a receipt in favour of defendant No.2 Ramprasad evidencing the same. This is the statement of defendant No.2 Ramprasad also. There is nothing to show that this part of the defence evidence was challenged on behalf of the plaintiff. Merely because the sum of Rs. 200 was not specified as the consideration, it coin not be said in the face of this un-challenged evidence that there is no evidence to prove that the transfer was to be for consideration which had already been paid. Merely because the sum of Rs. 200 was not specified as the consideration, it coin not be said in the face of this un-challenged evidence that there is no evidence to prove that the transfer was to be for consideration which had already been paid. The first appellate Court was, therefore, clearly in error in taking the view that there is no evidence to prove that the transfer by Gajru and Pirmu in favour of defendant No.2 Ramprasad was to be for consideration. 3. Shri Kale, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, contended that one of the requirements of section 53 A, Transfer of Property Act, is that the terms necessary to constitute the transfer should be capable of ascertainment with reasonable certainty and without specifying the exact amount of consideration, i.e. Rs. 200, this requirement was not fulfilled. In my opinion, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the omission to specify this figure of Rs. 200 by these witnesses does not lead to the result suggested by Shri Kale. There was no controversy between the parties about the quantum of consideration. the finding of the first appellate Court is also not to that effect The only controversy between the parties which alone the first appellate Court considered and decided was whether the transfer was for consideration or not and not the amount of consideration. As earlier stated, the statement of Gajru that he had sold the disputed land to defendant No. 2 Ramprasad and executed a receipt for the same being unchallenged, nothing more was required to be proved in the present case for holding that the transfer was for consideration. Thus, the only ingredient which, according to the first appellate Court, was not proved to attract section 53-A was clearly proved as already indicated. 4. The result is that the defendants were entitled to the protection available under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and the plaintiff's suit for possession of the disputed. land was, therefore, bound to fail for this reasons alone. Appeal allowed.