Part performance protects possession where contractual obligations must be completed in sequence before final payment.

A transferee in possession under a written contract for transfer of immovable property could resist ejectment under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act where possession had been delivered, part payment had been made, and the contract carried an implied obligation on the transferor to obtain the necessary governmental sanction. The Supreme Court treated the transferee's readiness and willingness in light of the contractual sequence, holding that he could not be expected to tender the balance price before the transferor completed his own obligations. The statutory bar relied on did not defeat the part-performance defence because the transferee was not claiming title under a completed sale but only asserting protection against eviction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the transferee was entitled to defend possession under the doctrine of part performance, and whether he had been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract despite non-payment of the balance price on the stipulated date.

Analysis: A written contract for transfer of immovable property had been executed, possession had been delivered, and part payment had been made. The transfer was subject to statutory control under the land revenue law, so the agreement carried an implied term that the transferor would secure the necessary governmental sanction. Until the transferor completed his own contractual obligations, the transferee could not be required to tender the balance price. The statutory bar relied upon did not defeat a defence based on section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, because the transferee was not asserting title under a completed sale but was resisting ejectment on the basis of part performance. Readiness and willingness were assessed in light of the contractual sequence, and the transferee's financial arrangements and conduct showed continuing willingness to perform.

Conclusion: The transferee was entitled to rely on part performance, and the defence of lack of readiness and willingness failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the transferee's possession was protected against the owner's claim for ejectment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract for transfer of immovable property is subject to an implied statutory or contractual condition precedent to performance by the transferor, the transferee may resist ejectment under section 53A if he has taken possession in part performance and remains ready and willing to perform according to the contractual sequence of obligations.

---