A reversioner is debarred from claiming possession of the property from the widow's alienee, if the latter was inducted into possession pursuant to the contract and if the other necessary elements are present.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal raises some interesting questions under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) WE may give a resume of the facts culminating in the second appeal. The respondent, who is an alien from defendants 6 to 8, the reversioners to the estate of one Devarakonda Bangarayya, laid an action for the recovery of some items of property, including item 1 which is in dispute in this second appeal, Bangarayya died before 1931, leaving behind him his widow, Suramma. The property in question was purchased by Bangarayya on 8-5-1915, under Ex. B. 4. Being unable to find the purchase price, he mortgaged that very property to one Padmanabhudu, the paternal grand-father of the fourth defendant, under Ex. B-l dated 10-5-1915, for a sum of Rs, 700/ -. This mortgage was kept alive by subsequent payments. In order to discharge this mortgage and other simple debts, Suramma conveyed this property, under Ex. B-5 dated 3-5-1934, to one Nagayya. It was stipulated that the vendee should retain a part of the consideration and utilise it to discharge the encumbrance on that property. Since the vendee did not carry out his obligation, Suramma was put to the necessity of executing a sale deed in favour of Padmanabhudu on 8-l-1934.

( 3 ) ON this part of the case, there are inconsistent versions presented by the appellant. In the written statement filed in a prior litigation, it was stated that the sale in favour of Padmanabhudu preceded the sale in favour of Nagayya, whereas in the present action, the order is changed and the sale in favour of Nagavya is shown to be earlier. This inconsistency is reflected even in the oral evidence. That apart, the plaintiff denies the existence of a sale in favour of Padmanabhudu.

( 4 ) TO go back to the narration, this alleged sale was not registered. However, the fourth defendant seems to have got into possession of this property but when and under what circumstances he was inducted into possession could not be ascertained from the material on record. The plaintiff, as already stated, acquired the suit item under Ex. A 1 dated 16/11/1930. Thereafter, she called upon the defendants to deliver possession of the same and as the demand was not complied with, she filed the suit O. S. No. 176 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsifs Court Bhimavaram, which has given rise to this second appeal.

( 5 ) THE suit was resisted by the fourth defendant on the basis of the doctrine of part performance setting up the sale already referred to and his possession. The Plaintiff rejoined that apart from there-being no such contract, the principle underlying Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is not available against the alien from the reversioners and that, at any rate, that section does not assist him, as the document is not forthcoming.

( 6 ) THE trial court, accepting the contention of the plaintiff and over-ruling the defence, decreed the suit. This was confirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur.

( 7 ) THIS conclusion is challenged in this second appeal brought by the legal representative of the fourth defendant, who died pending the appeal before the Subordinate Judge.

( 8 ) IT is urged in this second appeal that the appellant is entitled to call in aid Section 53-A of the Act even against the plaintiff. Since the decision of the appeal turns on the construction to be put on Section 53-A, it is convenient to read it here. It is-in these words: "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