Shrimat Shyamrao Suryavanshi And Anr. vs Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi || Case Summary

Shrimat Shyamrao Suryavanshi And Anr. vs Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi

Shrimat Shyamrao Suryavanshi And Anr. vs Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi

Facts

In 1964, an agreement was made to sell agricultural land, and the purchaser (Appellant) paid earnest money and was handed possession in part-performance of the agreement. Later, the seller attempted to negotiate the sale to a third party (Respondent 1). The Appellant filed a suit for an injunction, but despite this, the seller executed a registered sale deed in favor of Respondent 1 in 1966. Respondent 1 then sued the Appellant for recovery of possession and mesne profits, relying on the registered sale deed. The Appellant defended their possession by invoking Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA), which provides the defense of part-performance. The trial court dismissed the suit, but a Letters Patent Bench reversed this, holding that the Appellant could not rely on Section 53-A because the time limit (limitation) for the Appellant to file their own suit for specific performance of the sale agreement had already expired. The present appeal challenged this Letters Patent Bench decision.

Issue

Can a transferee (buyer) who is in possession under a written agreement invoke the defense of part-performance under Section 53-A TPA to protect their possession, even when a separate suit for specific performance of that agreement is barred by limitation?

Laws Involved

Law/Provision	Summary
Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA)	Deals with the Doctrine of Part-Performance. It provides a defensive shield to a buyer (transferee) who takes possession of immovable property under an unregistered sale agreement and performs their part of the contract, preventing the seller (transferor) from enforcing any rights against the property, other than those expressly provided for by the contract.
The Limitation Act	This law prescribes time limits for filing suits and legal actions. Once the prescribed period expires, the remedy (the right to sue) is barred, but it does not extinguish the underlying right itself unless specifically stated.

Judgment

The Full Bench of the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Letters Patent judgment, holding that the defensive shield of Section 53-A TPA survives even after the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance has expired.

Reasoning

1. Nature of Limitation: The Court emphasized that the Limitation Act bars remedies (actions/suits), not defenses. In the absence of an express provision to the contrary, a defendant can rely on an otherwise time-barred right as a defensive plea—a principle supported by precedent (citing M.K. Venkatachari v. L.A.R. Arunachalam Pillai).

2. Scope of Section 53-A: The Court found that Section 53-A contains no textual limitation restricting its use based on the currency of a specific-performance action. Based on legislative history (Special Committee's report and 1929 amending Act), Parliament intended Section 53-A to protect transferees even after the limitation for a specific-performance suit expires.

3. Conditions Met: Since the Appellants had taken possession in part-performance, remained willing to perform their part, and met all six statutory conditions for invoking Section 53-A, they were entitled to its protection. Section 53-A operates as a shield, and the expiry of limitation cannot defeat this statutory shield.

Implication

The decision clarifies that the defensive shield of Section 53-A TPA is not extinguished by the expiry of the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance. Transferees in possession who satisfy the statutory conditions retain the right to resist eviction suits by sellers or those claiming under them, thereby reinforcing certainty and fairness in property transactions.