A person claiming an equitable title to property under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, based on an agreement for sale, must establish the existence of a completed agreement for sale, that his possession of the property is referable to part performance of the agreement, and that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.

Headnote:
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - INJUNCTION - SECTION 41(E) AND (H) - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 53-A - AGREEMENT FOR SALE - PART PERFORMANCE - POSSESSION - READINESS AND WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM - DISCRETION OF THE COURT - EQUITABLE TITLE.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing his possession of the property known as "Sadanand Palace" and surrounding lands. The plaintiff claimed that he had an equitable title to the property under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, based on an agreement for sale between him and the original defendant No. 1, who was the owner of the property. The defendants denied the existence of a valid agreement for sale and asserted that the plaintiff was in possession of the property permissively as a power of attorney holder.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a completed agreement for sale and that his possession of the property was not referable to part performance of such an agreement. The court also found that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, as evidenced by his failure to seek enforcement of the agreement for sale despite the repudiation by the original defendant No. 1. The court further held that the plaintiff's possession was merely permissive and that he was not entitled to seek an injunction against the real owner of the property.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had an equitable title to the property under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, based on an agreement for sale between him and the original defendant No. 1. 2. Whether the plaintiff's possession of the property was referable to part performance of the agreement for sale. 3. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement for sale. 4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing his possession of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a completed agreement for sale and that his possession of the property was not referable to part performance of such an agreement. The court relied on the following principles: - The doctrine of part performance requires that the acts of part performance be unequivocally referable to the contract and not to any other contract or understanding. - Possession of property for the purpose of repairs or improvements is not, in itself, sufficient to establish part performance of an agreement for sale. - A power of attorney holder is not entitled to seek an injunction against the real owner of the property.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the trial court, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff was ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs of the defendants.

JUDGMENT - B.A. MASODKAR, J.:---This appeal by original defendant No. 1 (since deceased and represented by his heirs) and original defendant No. 2 questions the decree made for permanent injunction restraining them from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff as far as the property "Sadanand Palace", outhouses and the land surrounding the said Palace otherwise than by due process of law.

2. Certain positions are not in dispute. The present suit was filed by the respondent-original plaintiff seeking the relief of injunction with regard to the said Palace as well as the agricultural lands numbering about eight, all situated at Ashagad, Mouje Aswe, Taluka Dahanu, District Thane. Although at the hearing of the appeal, the learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff pleaded any other type of legal possession, it is obvious from the plaint allegations that the plaintiff came to the Court alleging that there was an agreement for sale between the plaintiff and original defendant No. 1 (the original owner of the property), which was recorded on April 25, 1967. Under that agreement, it was the case of the plaintiff, the total considerations was Rs. 80,000/- and he paid earnest amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Pursuant to it and in part performance thereof, he was put in possession and thus has an equitable title under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. As, however, original defendant No. 1 backed out of the said agreement and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff, the suit was filed. The plaintiff did not seek any relief to enforce that agreement of sale although by the time the suit was filed ten years had gone-by. The defence has been one of denial of the said agreement as well as the character of the possession and an assertion, in that the plaintiff was allowed permissively to occupy the premises and particularly for management of the properties under a Power of Attorney and on the date of the suit was not in possession. As even that Power of Attorney was duly, terminated, the original defendant No. 1, being the rightful owner on whose behalf the plaintiff was in possession, the defendant remains in possession and no relief of injunction could be decreed. It was also pleaded by original defendant No. 1 that he was a member of the Scheduled Tribe and thus the agreement, even if there be any, was not enforceable.

3. The last aspect of the pleading of original defendant No. 1 is a part of Issue No. 9 and the trial Court has answered the said issue in the negative by giving reasons in paragraph 13 of the judgment. Strictly speaking and as a matter of law, it must be observed that the issue did not arise nor could the same be answered in the manner as is done, because the plaintiff has admitted in his evidence that original defendant No. 1 belonged to the Scheduled Tribe.

4. Coming to the rest of the controversy, the trial Court held that the possession of the properties for which injunction is granted was referable to the completed agreement for sale and that the plaintiff should be protected by extending the relief of permanent injunction.

5. In this Court, the debate surrounds that decree passed for injunction.

6. Before we appreciate the debated question, we will set out the chronology till the suit was filed which has a bearing on the eventual decision in that behalf. It is not in dispute that the property known as "Sadanand Palace" and the surrounding area as well as the agricultural properties, which were mentioned in the suit, are the properties owned and as such possessed by original defendant No. 1. The plaintiff is not the titleholder of any of the properties. Original defendant No. 1 styles himself to be the erstwhile Maharaja. On April 10, 1967 (Exh. 40), the plaintiff purported to propose to original defendant No. 1 that all those properties be sold to him for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/-. The letter states that the sale be completed as soon as possible and that upon comple

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1986 Supreme(Bom) 8

Cases Referred (1)