The main legal point established in the judgment is that the protection of possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act can be extended to a transferee only if it is proved that the transferee has taken possession of the property in part performance of the contract and has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.

Shri Ranvir Kochhar defendant in the trial Court is in second appeal before this Court, as he is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Chamba, on 31.5.2002, in Civil Appeal No.31/1997/1987, whereby the appeal he preferred in the lower appellate Court was dismissed and the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No.16/1986, dated 21.10.1987, passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Chamba, affirmed.

2. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession when the findings of the court below was that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had committed breach of the contract and the defendant was in possession of the property in pursuance to the agreement of sale?

2. Whether the findings of the court below are perverse, based on misreading and misconstruction of oral and documentary evidence, particularly when the plea of protection of the possession of the plaintiff had been raised in the written statement which covers the plea of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and the assumption that the plea of part performance was not sustainable is justified, more particularly in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 1.4.2002, when the plea in para 12 of the written statement that the possession of the defendant was lawful?

3. Whether the judgment of District Judge is based on misreading and misconstruction of the basic document of title Ext.P-1 dated 27.6.82 executed between the parties on the basis of which the defendant was in possession of the property and was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?

3. The subject matter of dispute is property known as ‘Sant Niwas’, situated in Dalhousie, District Chamba. The owner thereof was one Sant Ram. He had raised a loan from State Bank of India, Dalhousie Branch and as a security mortgaged the property in dispute vide registered mortgage deed dated 30.9.1967 with State Bank of India. Said Shri Sant Ram during his life time failed to repay the loan amount. He was survived by Smt. Bhagwanti Devi, his widow. State Bank of India filed a suit for recovery of the loan amount. Smt. Bhagwanti also died during the pendency of the suit. Said Smt. Bhagwanti Devi during her life time by way of Will bequeathed the suit property to Mani Ram, respondent herein, the plaintiff in the trial Court. He was substituted as her legal representative and this Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.7.1978, directed him to dispose of the suit property and to deposit the money received towards sale consideration towards repayment of the outstanding loan amount. He, therefore, entered into an agreement Ext.P.1 on 20.6.1982 to sell the suit house to defendant for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The part of the sale consideration, i.e., Rs.40,000/- was received in advance at the time of execution of the agreement. The sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered on or before 25.7.1983. On the failure of the defendant to get the sale deed executed and registered on payment of balance sale consideration, the sum of Rs.40,000/- paid in advance to the plaintiff had to be forfeited. It was further agreed that on the failure of the plaintiff to execute the sale deed on 25.7.1983, he had to pay Rs.80,000/-, i.e., double the amount he received in advance to the defendant. Said Mani Ram also died during the pendency of the appeal and survived by his legal representatives.

4. Admittedly, neither the balance sale consideration was paid nor the sale deed could be executed on or before 25.7.1983. Consequently, plaintiff Mani Ram, has instituted the present suit on 6.6.1986 in the Court of the then Senior Sub Judge, Chamba, for possession of the suit house, namely Sant Niwas against the plaintiff. While the plaintiff has claimed that the defendant failed to pay the balance sale consideration and also to