The judgment establishes the application of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act in protecting the possession of a person who may have acted on a contract of sale without a legally valid sale deed.

S.K. Pande, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment-decree dated 23-11-1989, passed by 1st ADJ, Teekamgarh, in C. A. No. 22-A/84, affirming the judgment-decree dated 24-2-1983, passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Class-2, Teekamgarh, in C. S. No. l-A/82, plaintiff/appellants have preferred this appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code.

2. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-

1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below erred in law in failing to appreciate that there was no evidence worth the name produced by the defendant to establish the fact that in the year 1965 there had been any agreement between him and Ganga Sahu whereunder on receipt of Rs. 100/- as earnest money, Ganga Sahu had agreed to sell the suit lands bearing Kh. Nos. 2681 to 2684 to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 900/-?

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Courts below erred in law in failing to appreciate that there were quite a few strong circumstances emerging from the evidence produced in the case which militated against the fact of Ganga Sahu having entered into any agreement to sell with the defendant as alleged?

3. Whether, otherwise also, the defendant having failed to enforce the performance of the alleged agreement to sell entered into with him against Ganga Sahu within the period of limitation available to him for the purpose he was neither entitled to claim any title in respect of the lands in question nor protect his alleged possession over the said lands under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act?

4. Whether after the death of Ganga Sahu, the alleged fresh agreement dated 26-2-1968 said to have been executed by Ganga Sahu's second wife Gunguch in favour of the defendant was not only a highly suspicious document but also did not bind the plaintiffs i.e. Ganga Sahu's other wife Rukmini, five sons and four daughters?

5. Whether, otherwise, also Ganga Sahu's alleged second wife Gunguch has no legal authority to execute the alleged fresh agreement dated 26-2-1968 in favour of the defendant and bind Ganga Sahu's other wife Rukmini and minor sons and daughters?

6. Whether the alleged fresh agreement dated 26-2-1968 entered into between the defendant and Gunguch was illegal and invalid for the reason that in case the property was joint family property of Ganga Sahu no legal necessity whatsoever had either been pleaded or proved and in case the same was his self acquired property no permission to enter into any such agreement had been obtained by Gunguch under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act?

7. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, when right from the time of death of Ganga Sahu on 3-3-1967 upto the year 1978-79, the names of Ganga Sahu's legal heirs i.e. the plaintiffs were recorded as holders of the lands in question in Bhumiswami right, there was no basis for the finding that the defendant had ever been in possession of the said lands pursuant to any alleged agreement to sell executed in his favour.

3. Plaintiff/appellants instituted C. S. No. l-A/82 in the court of Civil Judge Class-II, Teekamgarh for declaration, injunction, restoration of possession of suit lands and recovery of damages against the defendant/respondent Babulal on the ground that husband of plaintiff/appellant-Rukmini and father of plaintiff/appellants No. 1 to 9 late Ganga Sahu was the recorded owner of suit lands Khasra Nos. 2681, 2682, 2683, and 2684, Village Khargapur, Tehsil and Distt. Teekamgarh. On his death, plaintiff/appellants became owners of tie suit lands, however, the defendant/respondent Babulal on the basis of document dated 26-2-1968 (Ex. D/l) got mutated his name in the revenue record and dispossessed them from the suit land. Defendant/respondent resisted the suit stating inter alia that late Ganga Sahu died in the year 1966. During his life time he agreed to sell the suit land to the defendant/respondent for a sum of Rs. 900/-and had re