Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) (1916) 20 C.W.N. 901.

Lastly, the learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Privy Council in Malraju Lakhmi Venkayyamma v. Ventaka Narasimha Appa Rao (1). The main question in controversy in that case was whether there was a completed contract by which the Rani, the former owner of the property had agreed that the possession of the property would be given to her niece Venkayyamma Rao immediately upon the expiry of her life interest. The Privy Council held that there was such completed contract and directed the Receiver to deliver possession "upon the terms of the contract now affirmed". It may be mentioned that this decision in Venkayyamma Rao's Case (1), was among the authorities on which the Calcutta High Court relied in Ariff v. Jadunath Majumdar (2). The High Court held that the result of equitable principles which had been applied in many cases in England and were also applied by the Privy Council in Venkayyamma Rao' Case was that the defendant had acquired the rights of a permanent tenant. When this very case went up to the Privy Council in appeal (1), the High Court's decision was reversed. The Privy Council pointed out that the dicta in Venkayyamma Rao's Case did not mean "that equity can override the provisions of a statute and (where no registered document exists and no registrable document can be procured) confer upon a person a right which the statute enacts, shall be conferred only by a registered instrument". This decision of the Privy Council in Ariff v. Jadunath Majumdar (2), was given in January 1931. Nearly two years before that s. 53A had been enacted in the Transfer of Property Act introducing in a limited form the doctrine of equity of part performance. There can, in our opinion, be no doubt that after s. 53A was enacted the only case in which the English doctrine of equity of part performance could (1) (1916) L. R. 43 I.A. 138.