Per Desai A.A., J.:—The question involved in this appeal relates to extent of protection available under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (for short, 'the Act') to maintain one's possession derived through part performance. In the case of (Nanasaheb v. Appa)1, reported in A.I.R 1957 Bom. 138, the Division Bench of this Court took a view that the vendee is entitled to resist doctrilien of eviction of a vendor; even if vendee's claim for specific performance is barred by limitation.

Subsequently, the Division Bench in the case of (Adinath v. Policeman Housing Society)2, reported in 1991 Mh.L.J. 256, took a view:

“The agreement could not be enforced in law since relief of specific performance is beyond the period of limitation. The agreement in question met with its legal death. As a result, the protection under section 53-A of the Act which flows from such agreement cannot survive beyond its life time which is the source of the protection.

8. The defendants were merely prospective purchasers and the title has not vested in them. Once the remedy for acquiring title through specific performance is lost to the vendee, equitable relief of protection to possession comes to end

Click Here to Read the rest of this document