To claim equitable relief under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a person must prove the essential ingredients of a valid contract, part performance of the contract, and willingness to perform their part of the contract.

B.Rai, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a house fully described in the heading of the plaint by way of redemption. That suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge, Third Class, Sirsa, vide his judgment and decree, dated February 4 , 1978. The Judgment and decree aforesaid were challenged in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, who vide his judgment and decree, dated August 9, 1979 dismissed the appeal with costs and affirmed the findings of the trial Court.

2. Defendants Rameshwar and Bhagirath have come upto this Court in second appeal.

3. The facts of the case are that on October 28, 1965, Ram Gopal, Rameshwar and Bansi Dhar mortgaged with possession house in question to Girdhari Lal for Rs. 2,000/- vide Mortgage Deed Exhibit P1. It was averred that Rameshwar, Bhagirath and Hari Ram sons of Bakshi Ram were in possession of the house. It was stipulated in the Mortgage Deed Exhibit P1 that no interest was chargeable on the mortgaged money as the house in question was enjoyed by Girdhari Lal. In fact, the suit is against Rameshwar, Bhagirath and Hari Ram sons of Bakshi Ram for possession, as possession of the house was given by Girdhari Lal to them. After the redemption of the house, they had to go with mortgagee and had no right to retain the possession.

4. On notice, Girdhari Lal filed admission written statement. The suit was contested by Rameshwar, Bhagirath and Hari Ram by filing a separate written statement, contending that the mortgage was simple one and the possession was never delivered to Girdhari Lal. They pleaded that Rameshwar son of Surja Ram, plaintiff, for himself and for Bansi Dhar had entered into an agreement Exhibit D1 to sell the suit house for Rs. 3800/- to Rameshwar and Bhagirath sons of Bakshi Ram and had received Rs. 2,000/- as advance. Bansi Dhar brother of Rameshwar was minor who had half share in the house and it was argued that balance amount of Rs. 1800/would be paid after obtaining the permission of the Guardian Judge, Hissar, for selling the share of Bansi Dhar. The sale was to be completed by October 15, 1969. Vide Exhibit D2, the time of execution of Sale Deed was extended by two months by virtue of which the Sale Deed was to be completed by December 15,1969.

5. In replication, it was pleaded that Rameshwar son of Bakshi Ram, defendant had taken Rs. 2,000/ from Rameshwar son of Surja Ram, plaintiff, for payment to Girdhari Lal mortgagee and he had agreed that the mortgage will be redeemed after payment of mortgage money. However, this contract was not honoured by Rameshwar son of Bakshi Ram and that plaintiffs did not get any amount as alleged by Rameshwar and Bhagirath sons of Bakshi Ram. From the pleadings of the parties, following Issues were framed by the trial Court:

(1) Whether the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are either tenants or licensees of defendant No. 1 as alleged ? If so to what effect ? OPP.

(2) Whether the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are in possession of the suit property on the basis of agreement for sale as alleged ? If so to what effect ? OPD.

(3) Whether the impugned mortgage deed dated 28.5.1965 was a simple mortgage as alleged ? If so to what effect ? OPD.

(4) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

(5) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD.

(6) Whether there is a collusion between the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff? If so to what effect ? OPD.

(7) Relief.

-

6 At the trial Issue No. 5 was not pressed. As such, the trial Court after appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, decided all the Issues in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed with costs and it was held that plaintiffs were entitled to get the possession of the house in dispute after payment of Rs. 2,000/- to Girdhari Lal mortgagee.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record as also the judgments of the Courts below.

8. It was argued by th