GIRIYAPPA & ANR. versus KAMALAMMA & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2095 · Decided: 19-12-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 2095 : 2024 INSC 1043
Giriyappa & Anr. 
v. 
Kamalamma & Ors.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30804 of 2024)
20 December 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
When can the protection u/s.53A of the Transfer of Property Act 
1882 be granted in a suit filed for declaration of title and recovery 
of possession.
Headnotes†
Transfer of Property Act 1882 – s.53A – Protection of s.53A 
is available subject to certain prerequisites – s.53A is an 
exception to the provisions which require a contract to be in 
writing and registered and which bar proof of such contract by 
any other evidence – Exception must be strictly construed – 
High Court committed no error in impugned judgment and 
order – SLP dismissed:
Held: Respondents (original plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration of 
title and recovery of possession – Petitioners (original defendants) 
contended that the Respondents executed a sale agreement 
dated 25-11-1968 in their favour and since then the Petitioners 
came to be in possession of the land – Trial Court decreed the 
suit in favour of the Respondents – Regular First Appeal filed by 
Petitioners dismissed – High Court in impugned judgment and 
order dismissed Second Appeal, observing that the protection 
under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 (“TP 
Act”) does not arise as defendant has failed to prove that plaintiff 
has executed the Sale Agreement – No error committed by 
High Court in impugned judgment and order – SLP dismissed.  
[Paras 8, 9, 15]
Protection under Section 53A-Prerequisites of:
Held: 1. Protection under Section 53A is available subject to 
prerequisites: (a) there is a contract in writing by the transferor 
for transfer for consideration of any immovable property signed 
by him or on his behalf, from which the terms necessary to 
2096
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty;  
(b) 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; (c) The transferee has done some 
act in furtherance of the contract and has performed or is willing 
to perform his part of the contract. [Para 11]
2. Effect of Section 53A is to relax the strict provisions of the 
TP Act and the Registration Act in favour of transferees and to 
allow the defence of part performance to be established – It is an 
exception to the provisions which require a contract to be in writing 
and registered and which bar proof of such contract by any other 
evidence – The exception must be strictly construed.[Paras 13, 14]
List of Acts
Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Specific Relief Act, 1963.
List of Keywords
Part performance; Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act; Suit 
for declaration; Recovery of possession; Sale agreement; Proof 
of execution of sale agreement; Strict construction.
Case Arising From
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave 
Petition (Civil) No. 30804 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2024 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RSA No. 1740 of 2008
Appearances for Parties
Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Sr. Adv., Akash Kukreja, Mrs. Samina S., 
Abhishekh Singh (for M/s. Nuli & Nuli), Advs. for the Petitioners.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
Delay condoned.
2.	
This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of 
Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 23-8-2024 in Regular Second Appeal 
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
2097
Giriyappa & Anr. v. Kamalamma & Ors.
No.1740/2008, by which the appeal filed by the petitioners – herein 
(original defendants) came to be dismissed, thereby affirming the 
judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court and also 
the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
3.	
We have heard Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, the learned Senior counsel 
appearing for the petitioners.
4.	
It appears from the materials on record that the respondents – herein 
(original plaintiffs) instituted Original Suit No.364/1988 for declaration 
of title and recovery of possession. 
5.	
The suit came to be decreed in favour of the respondents (original 
plaintiffs). The Regular First Appeal filed by the petitioners – herein 
came to be dismissed and so also the Second Appeal by the High 
Court.
6.	
In the Second Appeal, the High Court formulated the following 
substantial questions

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.