MOOL CHAND BAKHRU AND ANR. versus ROHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 702 · Decided: 29-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MOOL CHAND BAKHRU AND ANR. 
v. 
ROHAN AND ORS. 
JANUARY 29, 2002 
[V.N. KHARE AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Section 53-A-Agreement to sell-Part 
performance of contract-Claim for-Written agreement to sell-Necessity 
of-Letters written by transferor agreeing to sell his part of the share in 
property-Letters not spelling out the terms of the agreement or time frame 
within which the sale deed was to be executed-High Court holding that the 
letters constitute a valid agreement to sell, allowing the claim for par/-
performance of contract-Validity of-Held, letters written by transferor could 
not be construed to be an agreement to sell within the meaning of Section 53-
D A of the Act-Order of the High Court set aside. 
The issue involved in the present appeal is whether a proposed 
vendee could protect his possession of an immoveable property on the plea 
of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 
1882 on the basis of an oral agreement. Plaintiff-appellants were owners 
E of the property in dispute. They had permitted the predecessor-in-interest 
of respondent to occupy the suit property as a licensee. When respondent 
failed to vacate the property, the appellants filed a suit for possession of 
the property and for recovery of mesne profit. Respondent resisted the 
suit contending that appellant No. 1 wrote several letters agreeing to sell 
F his half share of property had also received certain sale consideration. 
Thus, they claimed protection under section 53-A of T.P. Act and also 
alternatively claimed title by adverse possession. Trial Court held that the 
respondents have perfected the title to the property in dispute by way of 
adverse possession to the extent of half share of appellant No. 1 and 
dismissed the suit to that extent. However, on appeal the First Appellate 
G Court decreed the suit of appellants for possession of entire property in 
dispute alongwith mesne profits. On second appeal, High Court held that 
respondents were entitled to protect the possession under section 53-A of 
the Act. Hence the present appeal by plaintiff. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
702 
M.C. BAKHRU v. ROHAN 
703 
HELD : 1.1. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 A 
provides that where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any 
immoveable property, in writing signed by him or on his behalf from which 
the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with 
reasonable certainty and the transferee has, in part performance of the 
contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the B 
transferee, being already in possession, continues any 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 then he is entitled to protect his possession in respect of 
the property of which he was put in possession in part performance of 
the agreement to sell. [707-E-F] 
Nathulal v. Phool Chand, [1969] 3 SCC 120 and Sardar Govindrao 
Mahadik v. Devi Sahai, [1982] l SCC 237, relied on. 
c 
Mohan Lal (deceased) through his LRs. Kachru and Ors. v. Mirza Abdul 
Gaffar and Anr., [1996] l SCC 639 and Roop Singh v. Ram Singh, [2000] 3 D 
sec 708, referred to. 
1.2. In the instant case, the letters written by appellant No. l cannot 
be termed to be agreement to sell within the meaning of Section 53-A 
spelling out the terms of the agreement for sale. At the most it is an E 
admission of an oral agreement to sell and not a written agreement. 
Statutorily the emphasis is not on written agreement only. In addition the 
emphasis is on the terms of the agreement as well which can be ascertained 
with reasonable certainty from the written document. In the instant case, 
there was no meeting of minds. Admission made by appellant No. l of an 
oral agreement to sell does not spell out other essential terms of agreement F 
to sell such as time frame within which the Sale Deed was to be executed 
and as to who would pay the registration charges etc. Written agreement 
has to precede the putting of the proposed vendee in possession of the 
property. In the instant case, the predecessor in interest of the respondents 
was never put in possession of the property pursuant to the written G 
agreement arrived at between the parties. Thus, High Court fell in error 
in coming to the conclusion that the letters writt

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