<p><strong><sup>1</sup></strong>Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty,</p>
<p>and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract,</p>
<p>then, notwithstanding that <strong><sup>2</sup></strong>[***] where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract:</p>
<p>Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof.</p>
<p><strong>COMMENTS</strong></p>
<p>Under the provisions of section 53A the transferee is entitled to resist any attempt on the part of the transferor to disturb transferee’s lawful possession under the contract of sale and his position either as a plaintiff or as a defendant should make no difference. Contrary interpretation viz, the transferee can use the shield only as a defendant and not as a plaintiff would defeat the very spirit of section 53A for it will be possible for an over-powering transferor to forcibly dispossess the transferee even against the convenants in the contract and compel him to go to the court as plaintiff; Dharmaji v. Jagannath Shankar Jadhav, AIR 1994 Bom 254.</p>
<p>_____________________________</p>
<p><strong>1. Ins. by Act 20 of 1929, sec. 16.</strong></p>
<p><strong>2. The words “the contract, though required to be registered, has not been registered, or,” omitted by Act 48 of 2001, sec. 10 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001).</strong></p>
