JUDGMENT : DEOKI NANDAN, J. 1. This is a Defendant's second appeal in a suit for possession over a house except for a room thereof. The Plaintiff's case was that the Defendants were permitted to live in the house except for that one room, about 2 years before the suit, that the Plaintiff's wanted the house back but the Defendants did not vacate and even removed some goods valued at Rs. 250/-in respect of which a decree for recovery of the amount was also claimed. 2. The Defendants pleaded that the house had been given by the Plaintiffs to Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on the occasion of their marriage by way of Kanyadan. 3. The trial court found that there was no valid transfer of the property in law and that the Defendants were liable to yield possession in favour of the Plaintiff's and also liable to pay Re. 1/-per month as mesne profits, pendente lite and future, and decreed the suit accordingly. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court's decree. 4. Mr. Radha Krishna learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that it was not a case of the gift, and therefore, Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act did not apply and that being so a registered instrument was not necessary to effectuate the transfer. At any rate, learned Counsel urged, there was an ante-nuptial agreement between the parties in pursuance of which the transfer of the property was made at the time of the marriage and accordingly the Plaintiffs are now estopped from claiming possession, and in support of this he relied upon the case of Pran Mohan Das and Others Vs. Hari Mohan Das and Another, AIR 1925 Cal 856. Hari Mohan Das and Another, AIR 1925 Cal 856. It was held in that case 'that on a transfer made on the basis of an ante-nuptial agreement there is good and valid consideration for the same and the donee having been put in possession and haying held such possession for a number of years, he is justified in resisting the claim of the donor on the principle of the doctrine of the part performance of a contract and the donor is estopped from urging that the transfer is invalid as not being evidenced by a registered deed.' In the present case, however the alleged ante-nuptial agreement was not in writing and consequently the doctrine of part performance of a contract enshrined in Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be applied. 5. Mr. Radha Krishna then urged that it may be regarded as a case of a family settlement where the transaction need not be effected by registered instrument and in support of this proposition he relied on the case of Kale and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, AIR 1976 SC 807 . This case too has no application to the facts of the present case. The essential ingredients of a family settlement are not present. There was no antecedent title or claim to any antecedent title and no dispute which may have sought to be resolved by the transaction in question. 6. Lastly Mr. Radha Krishna urged that even if the transfer made on the occasion of the marriage of Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 was not effective in law for want of a registered instrument, there could be no justification whatsoever fop awarding mesne profits against the Defendants and that too even without a finding that their possession 'at any stage prior to the institution of the suit was wrongful. Indeed there was no claim for any mesne profits before the date of the suit, the only claim being for pedente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of 50 P. per day. There is force in this contention of the learned Counsel and the case does not appear to be fit one for the award of any mesne profits. 7. In the result the appeal succeeds in part only. There is force in this contention of the learned Counsel and the case does not appear to be fit one for the award of any mesne profits. 7. In the result the appeal succeeds in part only. The decree for possession over the house in suit is confirmed but that for recovery of mesne profits is set aside and in the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout.