Property Dispute: SLP Dismissed as Supreme Courts Reject Part-Performance Defense.
20 December 2024
Property Law >> Personal Law
This petition of Giriyappa & Another v/s Kamalamma & Others., concerns a property dispute where the petitioners (defendants) challenged the dismissal of their appeal regarding the enforcement of a sale agreement under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA). The petitioners claimed that they were in possession of the property due to a 1968 sale agreement, but the trial court and first appellate court found that they failed to prove the existence or execution of such an agreement. The High Court, while affirming the lower courts' decisions, ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to the protection under Section 53A of the TPA because they did not substantiate the sale agreement and their possession was not legally recognized.
The High Court's ruling hinged on the failure to prove the execution of the sale agreement and possession under the terms of that agreement. The courts emphasized that protection under Section 53A of the TPA requires clear evidence of a valid contract and part-performance of that contract, neither of which were substantiated by the petitioners. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the petitioners was dismissed, with the courts upholding the rejection of the part-performance defense. The judgment highlights the importance of proving the existence and execution of contracts for the application of the part-performance doctrine.
Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act - 1882
Transfer of Property Act, 1882