Section 53A protection in part performance can survive limitation bars on specific performance, preserving possession as a defence.

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act gives a transferee in possession a defensive equity in part performance; the majority held that this protection does not lapse merely because a suit for specific performance is barred by limitation. Limitation bars the remedy, not the underlying right, and section 27 of the Limitation Act was treated as confined to suits for possession, so a transferee who remains in possession and satisfies the statutory conditions may still resist eviction under section 53A. Desai, J. dissented, holding that the protection ends once specific performance becomes time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the statutory protection under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 available to a transferee in possession is lost when the remedy of specific performance becomes barred by limitation.

Analysis: Section 53A confers a defensive protection to a transferee who has taken possession in part performance and is willing to perform the contract. The majority held that the provision does not create title, but prevents the transferor from enforcing possession contrary to the contract. Limitation generally bars a remedy and not the underlying right, and section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is confined to suits for possession and does not govern a transferee in actual possession invoking section 53A as a defence. The legislative history of section 53A and the doctrine of part performance showed that the protection was intended to prevent fraud and to preserve equities while the transferee remains in possession, and not to make that protection disappear merely because a suit for specific performance is no longer maintainable.

Conclusion: The protection under section 53A does not come to an end merely because the suit for specific performance is time-barred, and the transferee may still defend possession if the statutory conditions are satisfied.

Dissenting Opinion: Desai, J. took the view that the protection under section 53A is conterminous with the enforceability of the contract and that once specific performance becomes time-barred, the transferee cannot continue to rely on section 53A to resist recovery of possession.

---