The doctrine of part-performance under Section 53A requires a valid contract and necessary parties; absence of these precludes claims under this section.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. G. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondents.

2. The present appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2015 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”) in Title Appeal No. 12/2014 whereby the judgment and decree passed on 10.10.2013 by the learned Munsiff, Rangia (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) in Title Suit No. 21/2010 was affirmed.

3. It is seen from the records that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 20.06.2016 had admitted the instant appeal by formulating a substantial question of law which reads as under:

“Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?”

4. The question arises, as to whether, the substantial question of law so formulated by the learned Coordinate bench of this Court vide the order dated 20.06.2016 is involved in the instant appeal.

5. For the purpose of ascertaining the said aspect, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant appeal. For the sake of convenience, this Court would refer to the parties in the same status as they stood before the learned Trial Court.

6. One Batahu Ram Das(since deceased) was the original owner of two plots of land admeasuring in total 2 Bighas 1 Katha covered by Dag No. 86 and Dag No. 950, both included in Patta No. 300 at village Dorakahara under Mouza Madartola in the district of Kamrup, Assam. The land included in Dag No. 950 admeasures 1 Bigha 1 Katha 0 Lecha and the land included in Dag No. 86 admeasures 1 Bigha 0 Katha 0 Lecha. After the death of the father, the plaintiffs along with their mother inherited the lands, the same have been more specifically described in the Schedule to the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 with the consent of the plaintiff No. 2 approached the defendant on 15.02.2001 for a loan of Rs. 20,000/- by mortgaging the land. However, the plaintiffs did not execute any mortgage deed in black and white.

7. Be that as it may, the defendant took signatures of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 on 15.02.2001 in blank stamp paper assuring them that he will make a Deed of mortgage specifying the conditions as agreed between the parties. The verbally agreed condition was that the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 would repay the loan and the defendant, who was handed over the possession, would return back the possession of the land. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs wanted to pay the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- and wanted that the defendant shall vacate the land and hand over the possession. However, the defendant neither accepted the amount of Rs. 20,000/- nor handed over the possession back to the plaintiffs. Certain proceedings were initiated under Section 145 and 146 (A) of the Cr.P.C. wherein the possession was declared in favour of the defendant. It is under such circumstances, the suit was filed seeking declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the Schedule land; for recovery of khas possession of the Schedule land by evicting the defendant, their men, servants, agents, employees etc; and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, servants, agents etc. from disturbing peaceful possession by demolishing the boundary post. The said suit was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 21/2010 and was endorsed for disposal before the learned Trial Court.

8. The defendant filed his written statement along with a counter claim wherein various pleas were taken as regards the maintainability of the suit. In the written statement, the defendant denied the case of the plaintiffs and