Part performance protection under Section 53A depends on proved written terms, possession, and can extend against a reversioner.

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act protects a transferee in possession against the transferor and, in a proper case, against a reversioner claiming under a Hindu widow where her transaction would bind the estate. The protection depends on strict proof of a written contract with ascertainable terms, credible evidence of the document's loss if secondary evidence is relied on, and proof that possession was delivered in part performance. On the facts discussed, inconsistent testimony and failure to prove the contract, loss of the original, and delivery of possession meant the statutory defence could not be invoked.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the protection of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was available against a reversioner claiming under a Hindu widow. (ii) Whether the appellant had established the essential requirements of Section 53A, including a written contract, ascertainable terms, proof of loss of the original document, and possession taken in part performance.

Issue (i): Whether the protection of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was available against a reversioner claiming under a Hindu widow.

Analysis: The provision embodies the equity of part performance and protects a transferee in possession not only against the transferor but also against persons claiming under him. A Hindu widow, though under disability as a limited owner, represents the estate for legal necessity, and an alienation or binding contract made by her for the benefit of the estate binds the reversioners. On that basis, the words "person claiming under" were construed liberally so as to include a reversioner in a case where the widow's contract would bind the estate.

Conclusion: The protection of Section 53A can, in principle, be invoked against a reversioner in a proper case.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant had established the essential requirements of Section 53A, including a written contract, ascertainable terms, proof of loss of the original document, and possession taken in part performance.

Analysis: The evidence did not satisfactorily prove the existence and terms of a written contract. The oral testimony was inconsistent on the execution, timing, extent of the property, and contents of the alleged sale deed. The alleged loss of the original was not proved by credible search or reliable evidence, so secondary evidence was not properly admissible. The record also failed to establish that possession was delivered in part performance of the contract, since the evidence on possession and chronology was conflicting and unsatisfactory.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to satisfy the statutory conditions for invoking Section 53A.

Final Conclusion: The defence of part performance was unavailable on the facts, and the decree for possession in favour of the respondent stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 53A protects a transferee in possession only when there is a proved written contract with ascertainable terms and possession taken in part performance, and its protection may extend against a reversioner where the widow's transaction would bind the estate.

---