2002 (1) TMI 1287 - SC - Indian Laws

Defendant's Possession Defense Upheld Despite Limitation Bar.

Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi Versus Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi

The Supreme Court held that a defendant transferee can defend or protect his possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act even if a suit ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether a defendant transferee can defend or protect his possession u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act even if a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell is barred by limitation.Summary:Issue 1: Protection of Possession u/s 53A Despite Limitation Bar on Specific Performance SuitThe primary issue in this group of appeals is whether a defendant transferee can defend or protect his possession of the suit property obtained in pursuance of part performance of an agreement to sell u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, even if a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell is barred by limitation.The appellants were defendants in a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondents for recovery of the suit property and mesne profit. The appellants, having paid earnest money and taken possession of the property based on an agreement dated 9th July 1964, resisted the suit on the grounds of their possession being protected u/s 53A and the decree of injunction operating as res judicata. The trial court and a single judge of the Bombay High Court dismissed the suit, but the Letters Patent Bench allowed the appeal, holding that protection u/s 53A is not available once the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation.The Supreme Court examined whether the law of limitation affects the right to defend possession u/s 53A. It was argued that Section 53A does not forbid a defendant transferee from protecting his possession even if the period for bringing a suit for specific performance has expired. The Court noted that the legislative history and the Special Committee's report preceding the enactment of Section 53A supported the view that protection should be available even after the limitation period for specific performance has expired. The Court emphasized that the law of limitation applies to suits and applications, not to defenses, and thus does not extinguish a defense but only bars the remedy.The Court concluded that if the conditions of Section 53A are met, the law of limitation does not prevent a defendant from taking a plea to protect his possession. The conditions include a written contract signed by the transferor, possession taken in part performance, acts in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee's willingness to perform his part of the contract.The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment under challenge, and remanded the matters back to the High Court to decide any other questions of law that may arise. There was no order as to costs.