In Brief
The petitioners claimed they were entitled to protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, based on an alleged 1968 sale agreement for land. The High Court dismissed their appeal, finding they had failed to prove that the original owners executed any sale agreement or put them in possession. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, holding that Section 53A requires strict proof of four prerequisites: a written contract signed by the transferor, the transferee's possession in part-performance, acts furthering the contract, and the transferee's performance or willingness to perform. Since the defendants could not prove the sale agreement existed, Section 53A protection was unavailable. The Court affirmed that this exception to statutory requirements must be strictly construed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.