Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. As regards to part performance of the contract, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, Ex.P7 is alleged agreement alleged to have been entered between the vendor of the plaintiff and the deceased Balappa. In the entire agreement, there is no reference of the deceased Balappa having been put in possession in part performance of the agreement, not even a whisper that the change of status from that of tenant to the agreement holder. He relied on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and submitted that, a person put in possession in part performance of the contract cannot continue in possession without showing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. He relied on the written statement filed by the defendants and submitted that, not even one word has stated regarding the readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract to avail the benefit of protection under Section 53A of the Act. He pointed out from para 4 and 5 of the written statement and submitted that, not only the defendants have not stated that they are ready and willing to perform their part of contract, in turn, the specific case of the defendants is that, they have become owners under the agreement of sale and further they have perfected their title by adverse possession. Relying on these paras, he submitted that, the contention of the learned Counsel for the defendants that they are put in possession in part performance of the contract, cannot be accepted. He further submitted that, agreement is not concluded contract and it will not confer any title on the defendants under the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Properly Act.

12. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the plaintiff relied on decision of the Apex Court reported in 1996 (1) SCC 639 and submitted that, "if no specific plea is made as regard to the readiness and willingness to perform part of the contract by the agreement holder, he will not be entitle to retain the possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act". In connection with the same point, he also relied on another decision in the matter of Sardar Govindrao Mahadik and Anr. v. Devi Sahai and Ors. and submitted that "Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act requires that, the person claiming the benefit of part performance must always be shown to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, otherwise he will not qualify for the protection of the doctrine of part performance".

17. DW.1 in his evidence states as under; "I have become the owner of the suit schedule property from 17.5.1979 afterwards, I have never treated Sri Biligiraiah as the owner of the suit property".

18. The agreement holder cannot become the owner by adverse possession. In order to protect possession, even under Section 53A of the Transfer of Page 2062 Property Act, the agreement holder, right from the date of agreement must show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract, showing that he has kept himself always ready to perform his part of contract. Readiness is one, which shows his capacity to pay the balance of consideration and perform the other obligations. In this case, when HRC is filed, defence is taken by the defendants that they are not the tenants and they got the HRC dismissed. When the suit is filed for possession, the identical defence is taken by the defendants that the suit is not maintainable for possession unless the plaintiff seeks declaration of his title, despite there being no dispute between the vendor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff. Defendants not only have not filed the suit for specific performance, they have denied the title of original owner. This only indicates the mental attitude of the defendants not to perform their part of contract. A person who is not ready and willing to perform his part of contract, is also not worthy to claim the protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

19. The Trial Court has referred to the several decisions of the Apex Court in the contest of protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

20. In the matter of Sardar Govindrao Manadik and Anr. v. Devi Sahai and Ors. , the Apex Court has observed as under:

Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act requires that the person claiming the benefit of part performance must always be shown to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. And if it is shown that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, he will not qualify for the protection of the doctrine of part performance.