VASANTHI versus VENUGOPAL (D) THR. LRS.

Citation: [2017] 4 S.C.R. 919 · Decided: 21-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 4 S.C.R. 919 
VASANTHI 
v. 
VENUGOPAL (D) THR. LRS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4311-4312 of 2017) 
MARCH21, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.) 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s.53A - Part performance -
Protection of possession under - Pre-requisites - When not satisfied 
A 
B 
- Suit by appellant-plaintiff for declaration of title in suit property C 
and alsC' for recovery of possession thereof which she claimed to 
have purchased from the sons of one 'R' - The original defendant 
pleaded that he purchased the suit property from 'R' and was in 
possession thereof in view of part performance of the contract and 
claimed protection of possession u/s.53A - Plea of plaintiff is that 
she was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any such D 
agreement between 'R ' and the original defendant and even if such 
agreement existed, the defendant was not entitled to remain in 
possession of suit property without enforcing the same in law and 
thus not entitled to avail protection u/s.53A - Suit dismissed by trial 
court holding that possession of original defendant was protected E 
u/s. 53A - Appeal by appellant, dismissed - LPA by appellant 
dismissed as not maintainable - On appeal, held: The evidence on 
record shows that an agreement for sale was indeed executed 
between R and the original defendant, in part performance whireof 
the original defendant was in possession of suit property - However, 
admittedly neither the original defendant nor the respondents took 
F 
recourse to law for specific performance of the agreement - Original 
defendant also failed to plead in the written statement his readiness 
and willingness to perform his part of the contract - Further, the 
sale deed in favour of appellant has been duly proved and in terms 
of evidence it is also clear that the appellant had no notice or G 
knowledge of agreement for sale between 'R' and the original 
defendant, at the time of her purchase - Thus, though LPA filed by 
appellant-plaintiff was not maintainable, respondents not entitled 
to benefit of protection u/s.53A r/w. s.16, Specific Relief Act having 
failed to aver and prove that they have performed or have always 
been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract H 
919 
920 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
A to be performed by them - Suit filed by appellant accordingly 
decrer!d, as prayed for - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s.16. 
Limitation - Bar of. for filing suit for specific performance -
When inapplicable for claiming protection of possession uls.53-A, 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Held: Mere expiry of period of 
B limitation for a suit for specific performance may not be a bar for a 
person in possession of an immovable property in part performance 
of a contract to claim protection of possession uls. 53A if all the 
essential pre-requisites of s.53A are complied with - Transfer of 
Property Act, 1882 - s.53A. 
c 
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 - s. l 00-A -
Effect of. reiterated. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD:l.l In regard to the availability of the protection of 
Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1883 to the original 
D defendant and on his death, to the present respondents, the 
evidence on record does proclaim that the agreement for sale 
dated 20.5.1975 had indeed been executed between 'R', the 
predecessor-in-interest of the vendors of the appellant/plaintiff, 
and the respondents, pursuant. whereto, the respondents are in 
E occupation of the suit property. However, adequate evidence is 
not forthcoming to convincingly authenticate that the proposed 
purchaser (original defendant) and thereafter his heirs i.e. the 
present respondents, had always been ready and willing to 
perform his/their part of the contract, which amongst others, is 
attested by his/their admitted omission to enforce the contract in 
F 
law. His/their readiness and willingness to perform his/their part 
of the contract is also not pleaded in the written statement in 
clear.and specific terms as required.(Paras 17, 24] [927-B-C; 930-
E-G) 
1.2 Further, on a perusal of the evidence adduced, it 
G transpires that the sale deed dated 26.6.1982 had been proved 
on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. The evidence on record, 
further shows that the appellant/plaintiff had no conscious notice 
or knowledge of the agreement for sale dated 20.5.1975 executed 
between 'R', the predecessor-in-interest of her vendors and the 
H respondents at the 

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