Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(13 and 14) The Allahabad view was followed by the Chief Court of Oudh in AIR 1940 Oudh 1. In that case a suit was brought by the plaintiff under Order 21, Rule 103 of the Civil Procedure Code, in the following Circumstances:

(15) Mr. Firdos Jehan's husband, Sheikh Habibullah, was the tenant of a house in Lucknow which was owned by Dr. Mohamed Yunus, a sub-assistant surgeon in Gonda. In 1936 Dr. Yunus sued Habibullah for ejectment and arrears of rent. In may 1936 a compromise decree was passed according to which Habibullah was to vocate the house by 31st August. He did not vocate and on 17th Semptember Dr. Yunus applied for execution of his decree for ejectment. At this stage, Mt. Firdos Jehan who was living with her husband in the house, appeared on the scene. Her story was that she came to know Dr. Yunus wanted to sell the house and she got into touch with Dr. Yunus through one Hakim & negotiations were started for purchase of the house. It was eventually agreed that Mt. Firdos Jehan should buy the house for Rs. 7,800. Rs. 500 was paid to Dr. Yunus as earneat money and the receipt was obtained. She continued in possession under the contract of sale . Dr. Yunus thereafter sold the house to a man named Evas Malli on 30th September. He did not inform Evas about the previous agreement. Mt. Firdos having failed in the resistance proceedings, filed a suit under O. 21, Rule 103 of the C. P. C. It was contended that the suit was not maintainable inasmuch as it ws based under S. 53-A and S. 53-A could only be used by way of defence. This contention was negatived and it was held that although it is a settled law that S. 53-A is available by way of defence only , that principle is not applicable to a suit brought by a vendee under O. 21, R. 103 because the vendee in substance is merely seeking to protect the rights to which he is entitled under S. 53-A. (16) A similar case aropse before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in AIR 1957 Andh Pra 854 and the Division Bench comprising Subbarao C. J. and Vishwanatha Sastri, J held "Section 53-A does not either expressly or by necessary implication indicate that the rights conferred on the transferee thereunder can only be invoked as a defendant and not as a plaintiff. Under the section no title passes to a transferee. He cannot file a suit for a declaration of his title to the property or seek to recover possession of the same on the basis of any title conferred to him."