Authored by Kiran Raj

In Giriyappa & Anr. v. Kamalamma & Ors. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30804 of 2024), the Supreme Court adjudicated on the invocation of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, within the context of a property dispute. The petition emanated from the order passed by the Karnataka High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 1740/2008, which upheld the decrees issued by the lower courts, decreeing in favor of the respondents and rejecting the claims of the petitioners. The matter concerned the applicability of the doctrine of part-performance and the interpretation of statutory requirements under Section 53-A.

The case arose from a suit filed by the respondents, original plaintiffs, seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession concerning certain immovable property. The Trial Court decreed the suit in their favor, holding them to be the lawful owners. The petitioners, who were the original defendants, had argued that they were entitled to retain possession of the suit property based on a sale agreement dated 25.11.1968, allegedly executed by the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 850. The petitioners claimed that they had taken possession and performed their part of the agreement, thus invoking the protection of Section 53-A.

The High Court dismissed these claims, observing that the petitioners had failed to provide evidence substantiating the execution of a valid and enforceable agreement or possession under such an agreement. The High Court stated in its judgment: “When the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff has executed the Sale Agreement dated 25.11.1968 agreeing to sell 2 gunta out of survey No. 24/9 and he came in possession and occupation of suit schedule property by virtue of the same, the question of providing protection under Section 53A of the T.P. Act does not arise.” The Court further noted that the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were consistent with the evidence and could not be regarded as perverse.

In adjudicating the special leave petition, the Supreme Court analyzed the statutory framework of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, which provides a statutory shield to transferees in possession under certain conditions. The Court observed, “Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was inserted partly to set at rest the conflict of views in this country, but principally for the protection of ignorant transferees who take possession or spend money in improvements relying on documents which are ineffective as transfers or on contracts which cannot be proved for want of registration.” The provision is an exception to the general requirement of written and registered contracts under property law, allowing the defense of part-performance when specific statutory conditions are met.

The Court outlined the conditions for invoking Section 53-A, which include a written contract signed by the transferor, the terms of which can be ascertained with reasonable certainty; possession taken or retained in part-performance of the contract; and the transferee's readiness and willingness to perform their obligations under the contract. The Court emphasized, “Section 53-A is an exception to the provisions which require a contract to be in writing and registered and which bar proof of such contract by any other evidence. Consequently, the exception must be strictly construed.”

The Court noted that the petitioners failed to meet these statutory conditions, as they could not prove the execution of a valid sale agreement or their possession in part-performance of the contract. Furthermore, the Court referred to Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which imposes personal bars to the relief of specific performance, including failure to perform or readiness to perform essential obligations under a contract. It stated, “Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favor of a person who has become incapable of performing, or violates any essential term of, the contract that on his part remains to be performed.”

The Court rejected the contention that the petitioners' possession, absent compliance with these statutory conditions, could invoke the protection of Section 53-A. It observed that the doctrine of part-performance cannot be utilized to shield possession obtained without adherence to the legal prerequisites. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the special leave petition, finding no error in the reasoning and conclusions of the lower courts.

Case Title: Giriyappa & Anr. v. Kamalamma & Ors.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30804 of 2024
Bench Composition: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

[Read/Download order]