( 1. ) THE facts lie in a narrow compass but the question of law emerging therefrom does have substantiality.

( 2. ) THE contending parties both claim under one Bonda who was admittedly the owner of the suit property at one point of time. The plaintiff-appellant claimed to have acquired title from Bonda under a registered deed of sale dated 18-11-1961 and sued the defendants for possession alleging the possession of the defendants to be unauthorised. The defendants Nos. 11 and 12 who are the principal contestants relied on an unregistered deed of sale dated 3-7-1950 entitled as an agreement executed by bonda in their favour whereby Bonda had alienated the land to these defendants, possession was delivered thereunder and the consideration too was paid by them to bonda They submitted that they having been in possession continuously since 3-7-1950 under the said deed claiming to be the owners of the land, firstly their possession was protected by the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of Transfer of property Act and in the alternative they had also perfected their title by adverse possession which would render the suit of the plaintiff filed on 28-6-1972 not maintainable.

( 3. ) THE lower appellate Court found that the deed dated 3-7-1950 was executed by Bonda in favour of the defendants Nos. 11 and 12; that Bonda had delivered possession to the defendants under the deed and ever since then the defendants have continued to be in possession; and that though Bonda had executed the registered deed of sale dated 18-11-1961 in favour of the, plaintiff but possession thereunder was not delivered to the plaintiff as the same was with the defendants. Nos. 11 and 12. In arriving at these findings the lower appellate Court has not only taken into consideration the evidence of the contesting defendants but has also observed that the admissions made by the plaintiffs witnesses lent support to the defendants evidence. These findings are basically of facte and unassailable in second appeal. Even the learned counsel for the appellant has been fair enough not to challenge the findings of fact. What he has vehemendy attacked is the approach of the lower appellate Court whereby it has held that the defendants Nos. 11 and 12 would be entitled to protect their possession under Section 53-Aof Transfer of Property Act and mat their possession being adverse to the real owner would ripen into title on lapse of 12 years.

( 4. ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Section 53-A of the transfer of Property Act would not be attracted and would not help the defendants in protecting their possession because the sale having not been completed in the manner required by law, it would be invalid The learned counsel points out that at the material time Ordinance No. 43 of 1949 of United States of Gwalior, Indore and malwa (Madhya Bharat) was in force, clause 15 whereof provided that a pattedar tenant could transfer his rights in the whole or in part of his holding by sale to a bona fide agriculturist only with the previous sanction of Suba of the District and after payment to Government by the prospective transferee of the prescribed fee. A transfer effected without a previous sanction could still be validated by the Suba but on payment of the prescribed penalty. It is submitted by the learned counsel that neither there was a previous sanction nor a subsequent validation and hence the sale was invalid.

( 5. ) THIS contention loses sight of he fact that the applicability of the doctrine of part performance does not depend on the legality or validity of the transfer. Fourth part of Section 53-A itself provides that the doctrine would be attracted notwithstanding that the contract though required to be registered has not been registered or the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force. The Ordinance No. 43 of 1949 was repealed by the m. B. L. R. T. Act, Samvat. 2007