Agreement of sale and handing over of possession of papers does not advance the date of sale.

K.M. Natarajan, J.

1. These two revisions arise out of the common judgment passed by the learned Land Tribunal (Subordinate) Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The two revision petitioners, namely, Muthuswamy Thevar and Muthirulappan belong to K. Chettikulam village. The holdings of these two revision petitioners were determined by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) as 97.07 ordinary acres (Corresponding to 27.85 standard acres) in the case of Muthuswamy Thevar whereas 98.16 ordinary acres (Corresponding to 27.85 standard acres in the case of Muthirulappan. It may be mentioned here that the said Muthusami Thevar died and his legal representatives are added in the revision petition. The surplus land declared in the case of these two petitioners is 11.75 standard acres and 12.85 standard acres respectively as per draft statement prepared under Section 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, (Act 58 of 1961). Both of them filed objections in time and they contended that by virtue of registered sale agreements prior to the commencement of the Act, they have transferred certain lands, that they should be excluded from the purview of the Act for the purpose of fixing the ceiling and that if those lands are excluded, their case would not be attracted under the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. The Authorised officer relying on the judgment of this high Court reported in C.R.P. No. 2848 of 1976 dated 14-12-1978, held that an agreement of sale will not have the effect of advancing the date of sale executed subsequently. Further, merely because the vendees had an agreement of sale in their favour or had been put in possession of the property, the position will not become different as far as the transfer of land under the deed is concerned. Hence the objections were negatived. As against that, they preferred an appeal before the Land Tribunal, namely, Sub Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, and there also they were unsuccessful. Hence these two revisions.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision-petitioners. Mr. M. Velusami relying on Ewaz Ali v. Fridous Jehan A.I.R. 1944 Oudh 212 contended that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act does not lay down that the contract must contain a direct covenant regarding transference of possession and it only requires that possession should have been taken in part-performance of the contract for transfer, and some act should have been done by the transferee in furtherance of it. The learned Counsel also relied on the decision reported in Ratanlal y. Krishanlal A.I.R. 1952 Raj.141 for the same proposition. The question now arises for consideration is, even if there is an agreement of sale and in pursuance of that possession has been given to the vendee, whether by virtue of the part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act the purchaser can acquire title to the properties so as to exclude the said properties from the holding of the land-holder. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision in Authorised Officer (L.R.) Ramasamy Gounder (1983)1 M.LJ.261 where V. Balasubrahmanyan, J. held as follows:

The total effect of Section 53A is to effectuate a transfer as fully and as completely as if a conveyance had been effected although all that the parties have is a mere agreement in writing for the transfer of property followed by delivery of possession and a willingness on the part of the parties to complete the transaction. In the present case, the evidence on record shows that the agreement was in writing on stamp paper, that it contained the details of the terms of conveyance including consideration the advance received, the price of the lands to be conveyed and the time for completion of the transaction. The record also contains the materials to show that closely following on the heels of the agreement in writing, possession was handed over by the landlord to the purchasers. What is more, subsequently, as conte