Possession under an agreement of sale can be protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, even after the expiration of the limitation period for specific performance.

The appellant herein/plaintiff has filed the suit in OS.No.582/1994 against the respondents herein/ defendants to pass a judgement and decree in favour of the plaintiff, (a) directing the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property, (b) directing the defendants to pay costs of the suit and (c) directing the defendants to pay future mesne profits from the date of the suit to the date of delivery.

2. The case of the Plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows:-

a. The plaintiff purchased an extent of 3032 sq.ft in TS.No.581 (Part) with a house bearing Door No.30C from one Dharmaraja Vanniar under the sale deed dated 28.3.1989 for a valid consideration. The 1st defendant is the brothers son of the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant being the 2nd wife of Packirisamy Vanniar is the stepmother of the 1st defendant. At the time when the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant was in occupation of Door No.30C and the house to an extent of about 300 sq.ft under some arrangement with Dharmaraja Vanniar. The remaining portion was put in possession of the plaintiff by Dharmaraja Vanniar. The portion in possession of the plaintiff in the property purchased from Dharmaraja Vanniar is used as Kitchen, bathroom, drainage and backyard by the plaintiff. There is also a small temple maintained by the plaintiff.

b. After purchase, the plaintiff requested the 1st defendant to vacate the house and hand over possession to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant agreed to vacate after finding an alternative accommodation. The 1st defendant colluding with his step-mother, the 2nd defendant issued a legal notice to the plaintiff and Dharmaraja Vanniar on 25.10.1989, setting up an agreement of sale dated 11.1.1975 entered into with the plaintiffs vendor Dharmaraja Vanniar by the 2nd defendant. The said notice alleged some payment alledgedly made by the 2nd defendant to Dharmaraja Vanniar. The plaintiff was never aware of the alleged agreement of sale, till he received the said notice. It is false to say that possession was delivered to the 2nd defendant by Dharmaraja Vanniar under the aforesaid agreement of sale. If it were true, Dharmaraja Vanniar could not have put the plaintiff in possession of the property after the plaintiffs purchase. The plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the alleged sale agreement dated 11.1.75. The said agreement, assuming it is true, became time barred in the year 1978 itself and more so, when the 2nd defendant issued notice to the plaintiff on 25.10.1989. The alleged agreement has become unenforceable. The 2nd defendant cannot in law claim to be in possession of the suit property under the agreement and cannot therefore, avail the benefits of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The alleged possession of the 2nd defendant could in law be only permissive and never adverse to either Dharmaraja Vanniar or the plaintiff.

c. The plaintiff issued a notice dated 19.7.1994 to the 1st defendant calling upon the 1st defendant to deliver possession. The 1st defendant has given a reply on 25.7.1994 alleging that he is enjoying the property under the 2nd defendant. The allegations in the 1st defendants notice are false. The defendants are colluding together to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. The defendants are bound to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also entitled to the future mesne profits from the date of the suit to the date of delivery. Hence, the suit has been filed.

3. In the Written Statement filed by the Defendants, it is averred as follows:-

a. The suit has been filed based on the fraudulent document, namely, the sale deed dated 28.3.1989 said to have been executed by Dharmaraja Vanniar. The said Dharmaraja Vanniar was not in possession of the suit property on 28.3.1989. No possession of the suit property was given to the plaintiff at any time. The extent of the property is also false. Dharma