YESHODABAI W/O BATUKJI DEVANI v. NANDKISHOR S/O GOPALDAS SHARMA
Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act - Unregistered Agreement and Statutory Bar: Protection of Possession Denied Due to Section 17[1-A] of the Registration Act and Prohibition under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons (Rehabilitation) Act, 1999.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:5191
Decision Date: 23-05-2025
List of Laws
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882; The Registration Act, 1908; Maharashtra Project Affected Persons (Rehabilitation) Act, 1999; The Code of Civil Procedure
- Facts: The plaintiff (respondent) sued the defendant (appellant) for possession of agricultural land. The defendant had entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff in 2006 for Rs. 3,50,000, paid Rs. 3,00,000, and was placed in possession. The land was situated in the benefit zone of the Jeegaon Resettlement Project, and Section 12 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons (Rehabilitation) Act, 1999, prohibited its sale. The defendant claimed she was ready and willing to execute the sale deed after learning the prohibition was lifted, but the plaintiff did not appear. The agreement was unregistered.
- Procedural Posture: The Trial Court decreed the suit for possession in favor of the plaintiff, holding that since the agreement was unregistered, Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act could not be invoked. The First Appellate Court dismissed the defendant's appeal. This Second Appeal was filed challenging the concurrent decrees. The High Court framed questions of law regarding the burden of proof concerning the continuation of the ban, the defendant's readiness and willingness, and the requirement of executing the sale deed within a stipulated period.
- Issue: Can the defendant, who is in possession of the suit property based on an unregistered agreement of sale, claim protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, given the prohibition on sale under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons (Rehabilitation) Act, 1999, and the fact that Section 17[1-A] of the Registration Act, 1908, was in force at the time of the agreement? Further, do the questions of law framed constitute substantial questions of law that would alter the outcome of the suit?
- Holding: No, the defendant cannot claim protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act because the agreement is unregistered and Section 17[1-A] of the Registration Act applies. The questions of law framed do not constitute substantial questions of law as even if answered in favor of the defendant, the outcome of the suit would remain the same due to the prohibition under Section 12 of the 1999 Act.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 17[1-A] of the Registration Act, which came into force in 2001, renders an unregistered agreement of sale ineffective for the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the defendant cannot protect her possession based on the unregistered agreement. The Court also held that even if the defendant was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, the sale deed could not be executed due to the statutory bar under Section 12 of the 1999 Act. The Court further stated that a substantial question of law must have the effect of overturning the decision in favor of the appellant, which was not the case here. The Court cited Kiccha Sugar Company Ltd. .vrs. Roofrite Private Limited [2009] 16 SCC 280 to support the view that the court can dismiss the appeal if the substantial question of law framed is not involved.
🔒 For Members Only