Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"He is, in other words, seeking to defend the rights to which he is entitled under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act."

It is clear from the above observations that the learned Judges proceeded upon the view that under Section 53-A rights are conferred on the transferee. Since in our opinion, no right in property is conferred on the transferee under Section 53-A we are unable to agree with this decision.

19. Mr. Patel further relied upon a decision in Ewaz Ali v. Firdous Jehan, AIR 1944 Oudh 212. In that case the plaintiff had an unregistered document of sale in her favour and since she was already in possession of the property, the continued that possession under the contract of sale. The subsequent purchaser from the owner obtained an order of eviction. She filed objections under O. 21, Rules 99 and 100, but her objections were overruled. She then filed a suit under Order 21, Rule 103 for a declaration that she was in possession of the house in suit on her own account and could not be dispossessed in execution of the ejectment decree. We may note that in this case the plaintiff was, for all practical purposes defending her possession against the transferee who was claiming under the transferor. The law debarred the purchaser from enforcing any right against her and all that she wanted to achieve by the Court's help was to see that the estoppel against the purchaser from the transferor created by Section 53-A was enforced against him. She wa snot complaining about any infringement of a right in property vested in her. In our opinion, therefore, this case is distinguishable on its own facts.