SHRLMANT SHAMRAO SURYAVANSHL AND ANR. versus PRALHAD BHALROBA SURYAVANSHI (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 393 · Decided: 22-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SHRlMANT SHAMRAO SURYAVANSHl AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
:: 
PRALHAD BHAlROBA SURYAVANSHI (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
) 
J 
JANUARY 22, 2002 
[V.N. KHARE AND ASHOK BHAN JJ.] 
B 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 : 
Section 53-A-Part performance-Statutory protection under the 
Section-Suit for possession of property by transferor against transferee- C 
Transferee in possession of property in pursuance to part performance of 
agreement for sale-Held, such transferee can defend or protect his 
possession-Also such protection is available even if a suit for specific 
performance of an agreement to sell is barred by limitation since Limitation 
Act does not extinguish a defence, but only bars the remedy-Limitation Act, D 
1963. 
Interpretation of statutes: 
Rule of construction-While construing the provisions of a statute courts 
could legitimately take into consideration any document or report preceding E 
that legislation. 
Respondent No. 3 executed sale agreement of land in favour of 
appellant No. 1 for consideration towards which earnest money was paid. 
Appellants got the possession of the land after which they came to know 
• 
that respondent No. 3 was negotiating for sale of the said land in favour F 
of respondent No. 1. Appellants filed injunction suit which was allowed. 
However, respondent No. 3 sold the land through a registered sale deed 
in favour of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed suit for possession 
of the land. Both the trial Court and the Single Judge of High Court 
dismissed the suit. However, Letters Patent Appeal was allowed on the 
ground that the protection as regards possession was not available to the G 
appellants as the suit for specific performance of agreement for sale was 
barred by limitation. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that even though the suit for specific 
performance of the agreement for sale was barred by limitation, he can H 
393 
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) I S.C.R. 
A defend his possession under Section 53A of the Act so long as he is willing 
and ready to perform his part of the contract. 
Respondents contended that once a remedy for specific performance 
of an agreement for sale is lost by limitation, the equitable relief of 
protection of possession of the suit property under the agreement for sale 
B also comes to an end and is lost. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. In a suit brought by transferor - respondent for recovery 
of possession of the suit property, transferee-appellants can defend or 
C protect their possession over the suit property obtained in pursuance of a 
part performance of an agreement to sell under S.53A of the Transfer of 
Property Act I 882, even if a suit for specific performance of contract of 
sale is barred by limitation. 1396-C-D; 402-BJ 
2.1. The document or report preceding the legislation can legitimately 
D be taken into consideration while construing the provisions of an Act. 
(398-FJ 
R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, 11984) 2 SCC 183, relied on. 
2.2. The Special Committee's report which is renected in the aims 
and objects of amending Act I 929 shows that one of the purposes of 
E enacting Section 53-A of the Act was to provide protection to a transferee 
who in part performance of the contract had taken possession of the 
property even if the limitation to bring a suit for specific performance has 
expired. In that view of the matter, Section 53-A is required to be 
interpreted in the light of the recommendation of Special Committee's 
p report and the aims and objects contained in amending Act, I 929 and 
specially when Section 53A itself does not put any restriction to plea taken 
in defence by a transferee to protect his possession under Section 53A even 
if the period of limitation to bring a suit for specific performance has 
expired. 1400-B-DI 
G 
2.3. If a transferee wants to defend or protect his possession under 
Section 53A of the Act, he has to fulfil necessary conditions that there must 
be a contract to transfer for ~onsideration any immovable property; the 
contract must be in writing, signed by the transferor, or by someone on 
his behalf; the writing must be in such words from which the terms 
necessary to construe the transfer can be ascertained; the transferee must 
H in part performance of the contract take possession of the property, or of 
' 
-· 
S.S. SURYAVANSHI v. P.B. SURYAVANSHI 
395 
any part thereof; the transferee must have done some act in furtherance A 
of the contract; and the transferee mus

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