Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition by defendants who resisted a decree for declaration of title and possession by claiming part-performance protection, holding that Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act could not assist them once the courts below had found the alleged 1968 sale agreement and their possession under it unproved.
Issues
- Whether the defendants were entitled to protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act when the courts below concurrently found that they had failed to prove the sale agreement and their entry into possession under it.
- What preconditions must be satisfied to claim part-performance protection under Section 53-A.
Provisions considered
- Section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882The Court extracted the section and set out its three prerequisites: a written contract signed by the transferor from which the terms can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, possession taken or continued in part-performance, and some act in furtherance with performance or willingness to perform. As the defendants failed to prove the agreement and their possession under it, the protection was unavailable. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Held
- Protection under Section 53-A is available only where there is a written contract to transfer immovable property for consideration, signed by or on behalf of the transferor, with terms ascertainable with reasonable certainty; the transferee has taken or continued in possession in part-performance; and the transferee has done some act in furtherance of the contract and has performed or is willing to perform his part. (¶ 11)
- Where these conditions are met, the transferor and those claiming under him are barred from enforcing against the transferee any right in the property possessed, other than rights expressly provided by the contract, even though the transfer has not been completed in the manner the law prescribes; a transferee for consideration without notice of the contract or part-performance is excepted. (¶ 12)
- Section 53-A was enacted mainly to protect transferees who take possession or improve property relying on documents ineffective as transfers or contracts unprovable for want of registration; being an exception to the requirement of a written, registered contract, it must be strictly construed. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Since the trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that the defendants failed to prove execution of the sale agreement and their possession under it, and the High Court found no perversity in that finding, no error of law was committed in declining Section 53-A protection. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Result
Delay condoned; special leave petition dismissed, leaving the decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession undisturbed; pending applications disposed of.