A transferee who has taken possession of immovable property in part performance of a valid contract for sale is entitled to the protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, even if the vendor later refuses to complete the contract.

1. The plaintiffs appellants is in this second appeal had instituted a suit for possession after declaration of their title with respect to a small strip of land measuring 1 1/2 decimals only appertaining to Plot No. 420, Khata No. 130 of village Ramgarh, described in Schedule A of the plaint.

2. The plaintiffs case is that they purchased the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 4,000.00 under two registered sale deeds dated the 18th July, 1960 (Exts. 1 and 1-a) from one Lakhan Sao in pursuance of an agreement dated the 11th November, 1959 and claim to have come in possession over the same. In each of the two sale deeds, although the boundary is the same, the area mentioned is 3/4 decimal. According to the finding recorded by the Courts below, on the basis of the materials on the record, particularly a pleader commissioners report, the area of the land within the boundaries, as mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint as well as in the sale deeds, is approximately 6 decimals. The land has been shown to be bounded on the north by Gola Road, on the south by the land of the plaintiffs, on the east by the house of the defendant, Gopi Ram Agarwala, and on the west by a lane and thereafter the land of the plaintiffs. In this way, although the northern and the southern boundaries are fixed, the disputed land has yet to be fixed east to west at any place within the boundaries of the area of 6 decimals mentioned above. I have mentioned these facts in some detail as the plaintiffs suit has been dismissed on the ground of vagueness in the description of the land in suit also.

3. A proceeding under Sec.144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was started between the plaintiffs, on the one hand, and the defendant, on the other, which, according to the plaintiffs case, was although decided in their favour, the defendant later on took forcible possession of the suit land and demolished the hut which was standing on a part of the land. The claim of the plaintiffs is being resisted by the defendant on the around that the owners of the plot in question had entered into a written agreement with him on the 2nd April, 1960 (Ext. E) to sell 4 1/2 decimals of land, out of the aforesaid plot, and in pursuance of the agreement, he purchased three decimals of land under two sale deeds executed by two of the owners, namely, Malo Sao and Pemlal Sao, on 23-4-1960 and 14-6-1960 respectively which were duly registered. Another sale deed, which was executed by Lakhan Sao on 23-4-1960 (Ext. F/3), which was also presented for registration, could not be registered as Lakhan Sao did not turn up to admit execution and subsequently he purported to sell the land to the plaintiffs in the name of plaintiff No. 2 which was wholly illegal and the plaintiffs did not derive any title there under. According to the further case of the defendant, the area covered by the two sale deeds (Exts. 1-and 1/a) in favour of the plaintiffs is only 3/4 decimal. In the written statement itself, uncertainty and vagueness in the description of the suit land was pleaded by the defendant.

4. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit on the finding that the defendant being a transferee from the vendor of the plaintiffs, having already taken possession of the disputed land in part performance of the contract, the plaintiffs claiming through the defendants transferor, namely, Lakhan Sao were debarred from enforcing any right in respect of the property in pursuance of the provision contained in Sec. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and that the description of the suit land given in the plaint as well as in the sale deeds was quite vague and uncertain. The Court of appeal below has also recorded a clear finding that the agreement for sale deed 11-11-1959 (Ext. 3) set up by the plaintiffs to meet the sale deed of the defendant, being earlier in point of time to their sale deeds, was a forged and fabricated document and that the plaintiffs were never put in possession in pursuance of th