The respondents (original plaintiffs) initiated a suit in 1988 (Original Suit No. 364/1988), seeking a declaration of title and recovery of possession of certain immovable property. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The petitioners, who were the defendants in the original suit, filed a Regular First Appeal, which was dismissed. Subsequently, their Second Appeal before the High Court was also dismissed. The High Court upheld the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court, leading the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court.

The petitioners argued that they had a valid sale agreement dated November 25, 1968, with the plaintiffs, agreeing to sell a portion of land. Based on this agreement, they claimed to have been in possession of the property since that time. They sought protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, which provides the legal defense of part-performance. However, the key legal question raised before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts were correct in dismissing the defense based on this provision.

In its judgment, the High Court noted that the petitioners failed to prove the execution of the sale agreement or that they were placed in possession of the property as per the terms of the agreement. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, demonstrated that they had constructed a shed on the disputed property in the 1980s and that the defendants had unlawfully occupied it. Moreover, the defendants' attempt to claim occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal was also dismissed, further undermining their claim of possession through the sale agreement.

The High Court rejected the applicability of Section 53-A, stating that since the petitioners could not establish the existence of the sale agreement or their lawful possession, the protection under the section did not arise.

Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, which deals with part-performance, stipulates that a transferee in possession of property under a written contract of sale, who has partly performed the contract, may not be dispossessed by the transferor or anyone claiming under them. This protection is available even if the contract has not been completed in accordance with the law, provided that the transferee has performed or is willing to perform their part of the contract.

Additionally, Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, bars relief for a party who has not fulfilled their obligations under the contract or who has acted fraudulently or in bad faith. The petitioners’ failure to prove performance or readiness to perform their part of the contract, as required under Section 53-A, was a significant factor in the court’s decision.

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case, upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming that the petitioners failed to meet the prerequisites for invoking Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court emphasized that for part-performance to be invoked, the following conditions must be satisfied:

There must be a written contract of sale signed by the transferor, with terms that can be reasonably ascertained.

The transferee must be in possession of the property, either by taking possession in part-performance of the contract or continuing in possession.

The transferee must have performed, or be willing to perform, their obligations under the contract.

Since the petitioners could not prove the existence of the sale agreement or their possession under its terms, the Supreme Court concluded that Section 53-A could not be applied in their favor.

The decision reinforces the importance of proving the existence of a written and signed contract, as well as actual possession or part-performance, to claim the protection offered by Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The ruling underscores that legal defenses based on part-performance should not be lightly invoked and must meet the stringent requirements laid down by the law. This judgment serves as a reminder to prospective transferees of the critical need to ensure clear and enforceable agreements when dealing with immovable property transactions.

In this case, the petitioners' failure to provide adequate proof of the sale agreement and their possession of the property led to the dismissal of their claim for protection under the doctrine of part-performance.