Possession rights cannot be maintained under an unregistered sale agreement when statutory prohibitions persist, regardless of readiness to perform the contract.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant in the present Second Appeal is aggrieved by the concurrent decrees for possession passed against her. The appellant is the original defendant and the respondent is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff is owner of the suit property which is an agricultural land bearing Gut No.131, ad-measuring 2.72 HR, situated at village Kavthal, Tahsil Sangrampur, District Buldhana. The defendant had entered into an agreement of sale dated 18.04.2006 with the plaintiff, inter-alia agreeing to sell the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-. The plaintiff has placed the defendant in possession of the suit property on the date of execution of the agreement of sale. Out of the total sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-, the defendant has paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the plaintiff on the date of execution of the agreement. It is also necessary to state that the suit property was situated in benefit zone of Jeegaon Resettlement Project, as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons (Rehabilitation) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1999 Act” for short), and resultantly there was a prohibition on sale of the suit property in view of Section 12 of the 1999 Act.

2. In view of the aforesaid, sale-deed could not be executed. The plaintiff has issued legal notice dated 03.05.2008 and 17.07.2008 to the defendant calling upon her to execute the sale-deed with respect to the suit property. Since the sale-deed was not executed, the plaintiff has filed a suit for possession against the defendant, which came to be registered as Regular Civil Suit No.120/2008. The case of the plaintiff is that since the defendant did not execute sale-deed with respect to the suit property, he was entitled for possession of the same being true and lawful owner. The defendant filed her written statement in the suit claiming that the sale-deed could not be executed in view of the bar under the 1999 Act. The defendant claimed shelter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to oppose the suit. The defendant also claimed that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, and therefore, the suit for possession was liable to be dismissed.

3. It will be pertinent to mention here that the defendant has raised a contention that she came to know that the prohibition against alienation of the properties covered under the Jeegaon Project was lifted, and therefore, she was present in the Office of the Sub- Registrar, Sangrampur for execution of sale-deed along with two witnesses on 17.10.2006. She however claimed that the plaintiff did not turn up for execution of the sale deed.

4. The learned trial Court has framed the issues, recorded evidence of both the parties on the same, and thereafter on hearing the respective submissions has decreed the suit by a decree for possession with respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court has held that since the agreement was unregistered, protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act could not be claimed. It is also held that the agreement was unenforceable since it was not registered. As regards readiness and willingness, the learned trial Court has recorded findings against the defendant.

5. Aggrieved by the decree for possession passed against her, the defendant preferred First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Regular Civil Appeal No.39/2010. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 25.04.2014. The learned First Appellate Court has held that the defendant has pointed out breach of agreement and was therefore, not entitled for protection of possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act . The learned First Appellate Court has also held that since the agreement was unregistered, the defendant could not have invoked Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act , in view of the provisions contained in Section 17-A of the Regis