Possession can be protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act without a valid sale, provided necessary conditions are fulfilled.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

In this regular second appeal, the defendants assail the correctness of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, which in turn reversed the trial Court's judgment and decree. The plaintiff's suit for the grant of decree of possession of plot No.86, has been dismissed by the trial Court, however, decreed by the First Appellate Court.

2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

3. The plaintiff (respondent herein-Smt. Mohinder Kaur) on 30.10.1978 filed a suit, claiming to be owner of plots No.86, 87 and 90, situated in Shivaji Park, Yamunanagar. She claims to have purchased plot No.86 for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 08.11.1965, from Sh. Chaudhary Dilip Singh, the proprietor of M/s Bharat Land and Finance Company, Yamunanagar. Immediately, after purchasing the aforesaid plot, she constructed a room. She currently resides in Kanpur and due to her absence from Yamunanagar, she was unable to take care of the said room and as a consequence, the room got partly damaged and it became unsafe and unfit for human habitation. She has also completed foundation work on all four sides of the aforesaid plot. In her absence, the defendants (appellants) with dishonest and malafide intention encroached upon the plot and illegally constructed a boundary wall along with one room and verandah. The defendants while contesting the suit, claimed that the plot does not belong to the plaintiff and in fact it was owned and possessed by defendant No.1. M/s Bharat Land and Finance Company and they had sold the plot to defendants No.1 and 2 about seven years prior to the alleged sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants after getting the building plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee, raised construction in the year 1959. Thereafter, Sh. Dasoda Singh, the plaintiff's father and Sh. Amrik Singh, the plaintiff's cousin tried to interfere in the possession of the defendants, which forced them to file a suit for grant of decree of permanent injunction, which was decreed. It was also asserted that agreement of sale of the plot in dispute was finalized in favour of the defendants on 27.06.1959, for a sum of Rs. 749/-, which stood paid. Thereafter, they have been requesting M/s Bharat Land and Finance Company and its proprietor to execute a sale deed in their favour, however, no action on their part was taken but the company or its officials never objected when defendants were raising construction. After, the replication was filed by the plaintiff, the trial Court identified the following issues for adjudication:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of plot No.86 in question? OPP

2. Whether the construction referred to in para 3 of the plaint was made by the plaintiff? OPP

3. Whether defendants No.1 and 2 are owners of the plot in question? OPD

4. If issue No.3 is proved, whether the defendants raised any construction on the plot in question if so, to what amount? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit, as alleged in para 2 and 3 of the addl. Pleas? OPD

6. Whether the suit is collusive as alleged in para 5 of the adl. Pleas of W.S.? OPD

7. Relief."

4. On 04.03.1976, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed, however, in appeal, the case was remanded back to the trial Court. Thereafter, the trial Court culled the following additional issue:-

"6.A Whether the defendants are protected by the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act? OPD"

5. Once again, on appreciation of evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit while observing that the defendants are entitled to seek protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the 1882 Act').

6. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on the following grounds:-

i. The receipts Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-6 are not signed by