Protection under Section 53A requires the transferee to demonstrate readiness, willingness, and action towards execution of a sale deed.

1. This appeal under S.100 of the CPC has been preferred by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27/9/2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.24 - A / 2004 by the 4th Additional District Judge, Dewas whereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 21/04/2004 passed in C.S.No.20 - A / 2003 by the 2nd Civil Judge, Class I, District Dewas his claim for permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. As per the plaintiff, Umrao Singh, predecessor in interest of defendant Nos.1 to 3 had entered into an agreement to sale with him on 12/12/1986 with respect to the suit land for a consideration of Rs.31,500/- and had delivered possession of the same to him. He has been in possession of the suit land ever since then. Umrao Singh did not execute the requisite sale deed in his favour though he continued to request him for a period of one year for the same. He has even otherwise acquired title to the suit land by virtue of adverse possession. Umrao Singh expired on 28/6/2002 after which defendant Nos.1 to 3 demanded possession of the suit land from him and threatened him in that regard.

3. Contending aforesaid on 19/8/2002 the plaintiff instituted an action for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit land.

4. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 contested the plaintiff's claim by filing their written statement submitting that plaintiff has not acquired title to the suit land by virtue of adverse possession. Umrao Singh was in need of money hence had mortgaged the suit land with plaintiff and had obtained a sum of Rs.18,000/- from him by way of loan on account of which defendant Nos.1 to 3 were liable to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to him which they offered but he did not accept the same and instead refused to deliver possession of the suit land to them. Plaintiff does not have any title to the suit land hence is not entitled for issuance of any injunction in his favour.

5. The trial Court held that on 12/12/1986 Umrao Singh had executed an agreement to sale in favour of plaintiff for a total sum of Rs.31,500/- and had delivered possession of the suit land to him and that he has been in possession of the same ever since then hence is entitled to protection of such possession under doctrine of part performance as envisaged under S.53A of the Transfer of Property Act .

6. In appeal by defendant Nos.1 to 3 the said decree has been reversed by lower appellate Court. While the finding as regards execution of the agreement to sale as aforesaid has been maintained but it has been held that plaintiff is not entitled for protection of his possession under the doctrine of part performance.

7. By order dated 10/8/2007 the appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law : -

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court with regard to protection of possession under S.53 - A of Transfer of Property Act .?"

8. Learned counsel for plaintiff has submitted that plaintiff had obtained possession of the suit land from Umrao Singh after payment of the entire sale consideration of Rs.31,500/- on 12/12/1986. Thereafter, he has made substantial construction and improvements thereupon. He is entitled for protection of his possession under the doctrine of part performance of contract as envisaged under S.53A of Transfer of Property Act , 1882 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') even though he has not filed any claim for specific performance of contract and which claim has also become barred by time. The conditions necessary for av