Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides protection to a transferee who has taken possession of the property in part-performance of the contract, even if the limitation to bring a suit for specific performance has expired.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok Bhan, J.

Plaintiffs-respondents, (hereinafter referred to as "the respondents") are the owners of the suit property, i.e., CTS No. 2871/C situated in Ranebennur Town in District Haveri. They filed Civil Suit being O.S. No. 33/95 for declaration of title, possession and mesne- profits in respect of the suit schedule property (for short "the suit property"). According to the respondents, defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") was put in possession of the suit property as a licensee; that the appellant had started claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property; that as the appellant failed to vacate the suit premises in spite of termination of licence, the present suit for declaration of title, possession and mesne profits was filed.

2. The appellant filed his written statement inter alia contending that he was in possession of the suit property in pursuance to the agreement of sale executed in his favour by Mahadevappa Neelakanthappa Airani, younger brother of the respondent in the year 1977. That out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 2000/-, a sum of Rs. 1,800/- had already been paid. That he was ready and willing to pay the balance amount of sale consideration of Rs. 200/- subject to the execution of sale deed in his favour by the respondents. Mahadevappa who had executed the agreement of sale and his brother had died intestate leaving behind no children and their share in property was inherited by the respondents and they have become the owners of the suit property.

3. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 13.6.1989 dismissed the suit aggrieved against which the respondents filed Appeal in the court of District Judge, which was dismissed on 2nd September, 1993.

4. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed R.S.A. No. 292/94 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. At the time of the admission of the appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed by the High Court:-

"Whether the courts below committed an illegality in refusing the decree for possession when they found that the respondent had failed to enforce the agreement of sale within the period allowed by law under Article 54 of the Limitation Act."

5. The learned Single Judge set aside the judgments and decree passed by the courts below and allowed the appeal in a perfunctory manner by observing thus:

"It is seen that the agreement of sale is of the year 1972 and no suit was filed till date to enforce the agreement of sale. The possession of the defendant cannot be protected in the eye of law. The defendant is not entitled to resist the suit for possession."

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi v. Pr alhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi [2002 (3)SCC 676], the relevant portion of which reads thus:

"The Special Committee's report which is reflected in the aims and objects of the amending Act, 1929 shows that one of the purposes of enacting Section 53-A was to provide protection to a transferee who in part-performance of the contract had taken possession of the property even if the limitation to bring a suit for specific performance has expired. In that view of the matter, Section 53-A is required to be interpreted in the light of the recommendation of the Special Committee's report and aims, objects contained in the amending Act, 1929 of the Act and specially when Section 53-A itself does not put any restriction to plea taken in defence by a transferee to protect his possession under Section 53-A even if the period of limitation to bring a suit for specific performance has expired."

7. Contended that the law of limitation is not applicable to a plea taken in defence to protect the possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. That the view taken by the High Court which runs contrary to the decision, quoted above, cannot be sustained.

8. Though we could have concluded the matter here itself, but keeping in view the f