Section 53A requires a written signed contract; a mutation application referring to an oral sale cannot sustain part performance.

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act requires the contract for transfer of immovable property to be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the transferor, with terms ascertainable with reasonable certainty. A mutation application that merely refers to an earlier oral sale does not itself constitute the written contract, so the defence of part performance cannot be maintained on that basis. The request for refund of alleged consideration was also declined because it had not been pleaded in the written statements, no issue or finding existed on the amount or usufruct, and the relief was sought only at argument stage; the party was left to pursue any separate remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the defendant could invoke the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on the basis of a mutation application referring to an earlier oral sale; (ii) whether, before ejecting the defendant, the Court should direct refund of the consideration alleged to have been paid.

Issue (i): whether the defendant could invoke the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on the basis of a mutation application referring to an earlier oral sale

Analysis: Section 53A requires a contract to transfer immovable property for consideration to be embodied in writing and signed by or on behalf of the transferor, so that the terms can be ascertained with reasonable certainty. A document that merely records a past oral sale or is only an application for mutation is not itself the contract. The writing relied upon here expressly referred to an oral sale and therefore did not satisfy the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: The defence of part performance failed and could not protect the defendant's possession.

Issue (ii): whether, before ejecting the defendant, the Court should direct refund of the consideration alleged to have been paid

Analysis: The defendant had not claimed refund in either of his written statements. No issues were framed and no findings were recorded on the amount of consideration or the usufruct received. The request for refund arose only at the stage of argument, and the Court declined to grant such relief in the suit, leaving the defendant free to pursue a separate remedy if so advised.

Conclusion: No refund relief was granted in this suit.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the statutory requirements for part performance were not met, and ancillary refund relief was not available in the present proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: For Section 53A to apply, the contract itself must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the transferor; a document merely evidencing a prior oral transaction is insufficient to found the defence of part performance.

---