Section 53A part performance requires unequivocal acts under a concluded contract; redemption rights and auction sale claims were accordingly limited.

Section 53A protection requires a concluded written contract, possession in part performance, an act unequivocally referable to that contract, and readiness and willingness to perform; mere continued possession by an existing mortgagee and pre-contract or equivocal payments do not satisfy part performance, so the redemption suit remained maintainable. A court auction purchaser claiming through attachment before judgment cannot enlarge the mortgagor's rights beyond the subsisting equity of redemption; where the mortgagor had already conveyed that equity to a subsequent purchaser before the auction, the auction sale did not transfer it. On the facts, the subsequent purchaser's redemption rights were restored, while the auction purchaser's claim was confined to the monetary charge directed in his favour.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the mortgagee was entitled to the protection of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act; (ii) whether Motilal acquired an enforceable interest in the mortgaged property so as to affect the redemption suit and the rights of the subsequent purchaser.

Issue (i): whether the mortgagee was entitled to the protection of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Analysis: The protection of Section 53A is available only where there is a written contract to transfer immovable property, the transferee is in possession in part performance, has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and is ready and willing to perform his part. Mere continued possession by one already in possession as mortgagee is not enough. The alleged payment of Rs. 1,000 for stamp and registration expenses was held not to satisfy the requirement because a substantial part was paid before any concluded contract, the nature of the bargain itself was disputed, and the payment was not shown to be an act unequivocally referable to a concluded contract. The other alleged acts, including retention of possession, alleged discharge of debts, and claimed willingness to complete the transaction, were not supported by conduct showing performance of the contractual obligations.

Conclusion: The mortgagee was not entitled to the protection of Section 53A, and the suit for redemption was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether Motilal acquired an enforceable interest in the mortgaged property so as to affect the redemption suit and the rights of the subsequent purchaser.

Analysis: A party claiming under an attachment before judgment and court auction sale can rely on the attachment only to the extent it survives and supports the execution process. The mortgagor had already conveyed the equity of redemption to the subsequent purchaser before the court auction in favour of Motilal, so the mortgagor had no subsisting transferable interest at the time of the auction sale. The attachment before judgment could not enlarge Motilal's rights into ownership of the equity of redemption. At the same time, in the peculiar facts, Motilal was granted a monetary charge to secure the amount found payable to him, reflecting the equities between the parties.

Conclusion: Motilal did not acquire the equity of redemption by the court auction sale, but a charge was directed in his favour for the amount awarded.

Final Conclusion: The redemption decree in favour of the mortgagor and subsequent purchaser was restored, the mortgagee's defence under part performance failed, and Motilal's claim was confined to the monetary protection directed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: For Section 53A, the act relied on must be part of a concluded written contract and must be unequivocally referable to that contract; mere continued possession by an existing mortgagee and pre-contract payments or equivocal conduct do not amount to part performance.

---