In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has elaborated on the prerequisites for invoking Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("hereinafter referred to as TPA"), emphasizing that a transferee cannot claim protection under this provision unless they can demonstrate the execution of a sale agreement on the basis of which possession is claimed. The judgment was delivered in a Special Leave Petition against the Karnataka High Court's decision, which upheld the Trial Court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiff.
A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing a petition in a case concerning the declaration of title and recovery of possession of immovable property. Petitioners Giriyappa and another, had claimed possession of a piece of land based on an alleged sale agreement executed by the respondent, Kamalamma, in 1968. They contended that the respondent had agreed to sell 2 guntas of land, and they had taken possession of the property based on the agreement. The petitioners argued that their possession of the land was protected under Section 53A of the TPA, as they were acting in part-performance of the contract.
However, the High Court found that the Petitioners failed to substantiate their claim regarding the execution of the sale agreement. The Court stated, “when the defendant has failed to prove that plaintiff has executed the Sale Agreement dated 25.11.1968 agreeing to sell 2 gunta out of survey No.24/9 and he came in possession and occupation of suit schedule property by virtue of the same, question of providing protection under Section 53A of the T.P. Act does not arise.” The High Court dismissed the Petitioners' appeal, affirming the decisions of the Trial and Appellate Courts.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, observed that Section 53A of the TPA provides protection to a transferee only when certain conditions are met. The Court outlined the following prerequisites:
- There must be a written contract executed by the transferor for the transfer of immovable property, which specifies the terms necessary to constitute the transfer.
- The transferee must take possession of the property in part-performance of the contract or continue possession in accordance with the contract.
- The transferee must have done something to further the terms of the contract, and must be ready to perform or has already performed their part of the agreement.
The Court further clarified the intention behind Section 53A, highlighting its role in protecting transferees who take possession based on documents that are not registered or contracts that cannot be fully proved due to technicalities. The Court explained, “Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was inserted partly to set at rest the conflict of views in this country, but principally for the protection of ignorant transferees who take possession or spend money in improvements relying on documents which are ineffective as transfers or on contracts which cannot be proved for want of registration."
The petitioners, in this case, failed to establish that the sale agreement they referenced was valid, which led the Supreme Court to affirm the High Court’s dismissal of their claim for protection under Section 53A. The Court noted that the alleged sale agreement could not be proven, and the Petitioners' possession was thus not supported by a legitimate agreement.
Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming that for Section 53A to apply, all conditions stipulated in the provision must be satisfied.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :