Law Web: Supreme Court: Transferee cannot claim protection U/S 53-A of TPA if he fails to prove the execution of a sale agreement based on which possession was claimed.

In terms of this provision, if the above preconditions stand

complied with, the transferor or any person claiming under him

shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and

person(s) claiming under him, any right in respect of the property

of which the transferee has taken or continue in possession, other

than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract,

notwithstanding the fact, that the transfer, as contemplated, had

not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for

the time being in force. Noticeably, an exception to this restraint

is carved out qua a transferee for consideration, who has no notice

of the contract or of the part-performance thereof. {Para 12}

13. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was inserted

partly to set at rest the conflict of views in this country, but

principally for the protection of ignorant transferees who take

possession or spend money in improvements relying on documents

which are ineffective as transfers or on contracts which cannot be

proved for want of registration. The effect of this section, is to

relax the strict provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the

Registration Act in favour of transferees in order to allow the

defence of part performance to be established.

14. Section 53-A is an exception to the provisions which require a

contract to be in writing and registered and which bar proof of

such contract by any other evidence. Consequently, the exception must be strictly construed.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.30804 of 2024

[Diary No(s). 56304/2024]

GIRIYAPPA & ANR. Vs KAMALAMMA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 INSC 1043

Dated: 20th DECEMBER, 2024.

1. Delay condoned.

2. This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court

of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 23-8-2024 in Regular Second Appeal

No.1740/2008, by which the appeal filed by the petitioners – herein

(original defendants) came to be dismissed, thereby affirming the

judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court and also the

judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

3. We have heard Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, the learned Senior

counsel appearing for the petitioners.

4. It appears from the materials on record that the respondents –

herein (original plaintiffs) instituted Original Suit No.364/1988

for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

5. The suit came to be decreed in favour of the respondents

(original plaintiffs). The Regular First Appeal filed by the

petitioners – herein came to be dismissed and so also the Second

Appeal by the High Court.

6. In the Second Appeal, the High Court formulated the following

substantial questions of law:-

"(1) Whether the Courts below were justified in decreeing

the suit of the plaintiff, despite the defendant seeking

the protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of

Property Act and also erred in not construing the law on

this point as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the

case reported in 2002 (3) SCC 676?"

7. It is the case of the petitioners – herein that the

respondents (original plaintiffs) may be the lawful owners of the

suit scheduled property but they executed a sale agreement dated

25-11-1968 in their favour agreeing to sale 2 guntas of land out of

survey No.24/9 for total consideration of Rs.850/- and since then

the petitioners – herein came to be in possession and enjoyment of

the same.

8. The High Court while dismissing the Second Appeal observed in

Paras 18 and 19 as under:-

“18. Perusal of the Judgment of the trial Court in as much

as the first Appellate Court indicate that on detailed

examination of the oral and documentary evidence placed on

record, they have come to a conclusion that the defendant

has failed to prove that plaintiff has executed the Sale

Agreement dated 25.11.1968 and put the defendant in

possession and enjoyment of the same. On the other hand,

the plaintiff has proved that the shed in the suit

scheduled property which is measuring one gunta was

constructed by him during 1982-83 and during 1983-84,

defendant illegally occupied the same. Before that he has

also approached the Land Tribunal, Tumakuru in G LRM-67/83-

84 claiming occupancy rights and it came to be dismissed on

15.05.1987 and it has attained finality. The findings

returned by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate

Court are consistent with the oral and documentary evidence

placed on record and as such, this Court finds no

perversity in the same.

19. When the defendant has failed to prove that plaintiff

has executed the Sale Agreement dated 25.11.1968 agreeing

to sell 2 gunta out of survey No.24/9 and he came in

possession and occupation of suit schedule property by

virtue of the same, question of providing protection under

Section 53A of the T.P. Act does not arise. Consequently,

the ratio in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi and Another vs.

Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (dead) by Lrs and Others2 is

not applicable to the case on hand and accordingly, the

substantial question of law is answered in the negative.”

9. We are of the view that no error not to speak of any error of

law could be said to have been committed by the High Court in

passing the impugned judgment and order.

10. Section 53-A of the TP Act and Section 16 of the Specific

Relief Act, 1964 (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as “the

1963 Act”), being of significant relevance are extracted hereunder:

“53-A. Part-performance.—Where any person

contracts to transfer for consideration any

immovable property by writing signed by him or on

his behalf from which the terms necessary to

constitute the transfer can be ascertained with

reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in

part-performance of the contract, taken

possession of the property or any part thereof,

or the transferee, being already in possession,

continues in possession in part-performance of

the contract and has done some act in furtherance

of the contract, and the transferee has performed

or is willing to perform his part of the

contract, then, notwithstanding that, where there

is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer

has not been completed in the manner prescribed

therefor by the law for the time being in force,

the transferor or any person claiming under him

shall be debarred from enforcing against the

transferee and persons claiming under him any

right in respect of the property of which the

transferee has taken or continued in possession,

other than a right expressly provided by the

terms of the contract:

Provided that nothing in this section shall

affect the rights of a transferee for

consideration who has no notice of the contract

or of the part-performance thereof.”

(emphasis supplied)

“16. Personal bars to relief.—Specific performance

of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a

person—

(a) who would not be entitled to recover

compensation for its breach; or

(b) who has become incapable of performing, or

violates any essential term of, the contract that on

his part remains to be performed, or acts in fraud

of the contract, or wilfully acts at variance with,

or in subversion of, the relation intended to be

established by the contract; or

or has always been ready and willing to perform the

essential terms of the contract which are to be

performed by him, other than terms the performance of

which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.

Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (c)—

(i) where a contract involves the payment of money,

it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually

tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any

money except when so directed by the court;

(ii) the plaintiff must aver performance of, or

readiness and willingness to perform, the contract

according to its true construction.”

(emphasis supplied)

11. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the protection of a

prospective purchaser/transferee of his possession of the property

involved, is available subject to the following prerequisites:

(a) There is a contract in writing by the transferor

for transfer for consideration of any immovable

property signed by him or on his behalf, from which

the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be

ascertained with reasonable certainty;

(b) The transferee has, in part-performance of the

contract, taken possession of the property or any part

thereof, or the transferee, being already in

possession, continues in possession in partperformance

of the contract;

of the contract and has performed or is willing to

perform his part of the contract.

12. In terms of this provision, if the above preconditions stand