The main legal principle established is the application of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act to protect the possession of a transferee who has taken possession in part performance of an agreement and is willing to perform his part of the contract.

Surinder Gupta, J.

This is appeal by Kashmir Puri against judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Panchkula whereby suit of plaintiff for possession of H. No. 631 Sector 19, Panchkula was dismissed and the decree in favour of plaintiff-appellant passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panchkula was set aside.

2. Case of plaintiff, in brief, is that being original allottee he is owner of plot no. 631 Sector 19, Panchkula. He had executed general power of attorney in favour of defendant on 29.10.1987 and had also executed an affidavit in his favour. The defendant in collusion and in connivance with the petition writer and witnesses obtained signatures of plaintiff on some blank as well as written papers and using those documents he manipulated an agreement to sell in his favour. Plaintiff denied that he had ever executed any agreement to sell in favour of defendant or received earnest money as per agreement, which he termed as false, frivolous, forged, fabricated and manipulated document. He alleged that installments of plot were deposited by him in the office of Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula and construction of the house was also raised over the plot by spending his personal funds. The fabrication of agreement is manifest from the fact that stamp paper of the agreement was issued by the Treasury Officer on 30.10.1987 on which agreement dated 29.10.1987 was got prepared. The defendant occupied the premises in question as general attorney, as such, his possession was permissive. After cancellation of general power of attorney he is in unauthorized possession of the same. He (defendant) had earlier filed a suit seeking the relief of injunction against plaintiff, which was decreed and the plaintiff had filed appeal against judgment and decree which at the time of filing of suit was pending before Ist Appellate Court. Plaintiff has alleged that mere agreement to sell does not confer any title in favour of vendee and he is liable to return vacant possession of the demised premises to plaintiff. A notice dated 11.10.1999 was sent to the defendant calling upon him to deliver possession of the demised premises within a period of seven days but of no avail, hence this suit.

3. In his written statement, defendant alleged that the plot in dispute was allotted to plaintiff and he expressed his desire to sell the same. Defendant agreed to purchase the aforesaid plot for valuable consideration of Rs. 29,000/-. The sale deed of the plot was to be executed at appropriate time. The defendant accepted the offer and paid Rs. 29,000/- to plaintiff on 29.10.1987. Possession of the plot was delivered to plaintiff and an agreement dated 29.10.1987 was executed by plaintiff in presence of respectable witnesses. He also received Rs. 29,000/- in part performance of agreement. It was agreed between parties that remaining installments of plot to HUDA will be paid by defendant and plaintiff shall execute an irrevocable general power of attorney with intention to transfer the said plot in favour of defendant. In the year 1987, defendant raised construction over the plot and is residing there with family. He had also paid installment of Rs. 3250/- after execution of the agreement by depositing this amount in the office of HUDA on behalf of the plaintiff. In the year 1989, plaintiff threatened to interfere in peaceful possession of the defendant and to dispossess him from house no. 631 Sector 19, Panchkula as a result of which defendant was constrained to file suit seeking relief of permanent injunction against the plaintiff, which was decreed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panchkula vide judgment dated 27.07.1999. Possession of plaintiff over the house in question is under agreement dated 29.10.1987. The defendant was always ready to perform his part of the agreement and is still ready and will always be ready to perform his part of the agreement. All the averments of plaintiff were contested, controverted and denied.

4.