Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, furnishes a complete defence to a transferee who has taken possession of the property in part performance of an agreement of sale, even if the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation.

1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the 2nd Additional District Judge. Ludhiana, dated 4th June, 1974.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff purchased a plot from the Gurdev Nagar House Building Society, Ludhiana, for a consideration of Rs. 1,500.00 , vide sale deed dated 24th April, 1958. It is pleaded that thereafter a house was constructed on it by him. He went to Delhi for some time and it is averred that the defendant took forcible possession of the house. Consequently he filed a suit for possession.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant who controverted the allegations of the plaintiff and inter alia pleaded that possession of the plot was given to her in part performance of an agreement of sale dated 7th May, 1961 (Ext.D-1, whereby he agreed to sell it for an amount of Rs. 2,500.00 out of which Rs. 1,400.00 was paid by her to him at that time. She further stated that the house was constructed on the plot by her.

4. The learned trial Court decreed the suit. It held that there was no agreement of sale between the parties and the defendant had taken forcible possession of the property. It further held that the house was constructed on the plot by the plaintiff. The defendant went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge who reversed the findings of the trial Court and held that the defendant was in possession of the property in part performance and that she had constructed the house on the plot. In view of these findings, he accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has come up in second appeal to this Court.

5. The first question that arises for determination is as to whether the defendant was in possession of the property in part performance of the agreement of sale. Mr. Majithia, learned counsel for the appellant, has strenuously urged that there was no agreement of sale between the parties and that the document, Exhibit D.1, has not been properly interpreted. According to him, an amount of Rs. 1,400.00 was taken by the plaintiff from the defendant at the time of his marriage and in order to secure the payment of that amount, the defendant got executed the document.

6. I have given due consideration to the argument but regret my inability to accept it. In the document, it is clearly stated that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the plot for a consideration of Rs. 2,500.00 out of which Rs. 1,400.00 had been received by him. It was further agreed that the remaining amount would be paid within one and a half years. It is evident from the document that it was an agreement of sale between the parties. There are some cuttings in the document but these relate to the amount received by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff does not deny the receipt of that amount. Consequently, the authenticity of the document is not vitiated by the said cuttings. The story of the plaintiff that this document was obtained by the defendant to secure the payment of the amount paid by her cannot be accepted. Therefore, I reject the submission of the learned counsel.

7. The second question that requires consideration is as to who constructed the house on the plot. The first appellate Court, after considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that the house was constructed by the defendant. The learned counsel for the plaintiff sought to challenge the finding on the ground that the plaintiff had in categorical terms stated that he constructed the house and he was not cross-examined on that point. The argument prima facie appeared to be good but when the statement of the plaintiff was read it was found to be without any merit. The defendant had cross-examined the plaintiff in that regard. In addition, the plaintiff did not bring anything on the record to show the source of money from which he constructed the house. The defendant, besides appearing herself as a witness, led evidence that the house was constructed by her. That evidence h