Protection Under Section 53A Not Available Without Registered Agreement: Bombay High Court Denies Possessory Rights in Land Sale Blocked by Statutory Bar

"Even if the defendant was ready and willing to perform her part, an unregistered agreement post-2001 is not enforceable for possession under Section 53A" —  In a crucial judgment Bombay High Court, through Justice Rohit W. Joshi, dismissed Second Appeal , reaffirming that an unregistered agreement to sell agricultural land, executed after the 2001 amendment to the Registration Act, cannot confer possessory rights under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court held that mere readiness and willingness to perform under such an agreement does not entitle the defendant to remain in possession, particularly when the land is subject to restrictions under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons (Rehabilitation) Act, 1999.

“No Registered Agreement, No Protection” – Appellant’s Possession Unsustainable

The dispute revolved around agricultural land in Buldhana district, part of the Jeegaon Resettlement Project. The original plaintiff, Nandkishor Sharma, owner of the land, had entered into an agreement of sale dated 18 April 2006 with Yashodabai, the appellant. While ₹3,00,000 out of the agreed ₹3,50,000 consideration was paid, the agreement was never registered, and the sale deed was not executed owing to a statutory bar under Section 12 of the 1999 Act, which prohibits alienation of such project-affected lands.

Possession was granted to the appellant at the time of the agreement. However, after a legal notice and delay in execution, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.120/2008 seeking possession. The defendant resisted by invoking Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, claiming part performance and stating she was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed.

But the Court found that this defence collapsed in light of the agreement’s unregistered status. “It is undisputed that the agreement in question is an unregistered document,” the Court noted. It further observed, “In view of Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act, the agreement of sale cannot have any effect for the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.”

Concurrent Findings Upheld – Readiness Is Irrelevant Without Registration

The trial court had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, holding the defendant’s reliance on Section 53A to be legally untenable due to the absence of a registered agreement. The First Appellate Court concurred, observing that “since the agreement was unregistered, the defendant could not have invoked Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, in view of the provisions contained in Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act.”

Justice Joshi upheld these findings, stating that “even if it is held that the plaintiff was all throughout ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, and the sale deed could not be executed only in view of the bar under Section 12 of the 1999 Act, the suit for possession will have to be decreed.”

The judgment emphasizes that legal ownership cannot be defeated merely by possession taken under an unenforceable contract: “When the plaintiff in a suit for possession proves his title over the suit property, a decree for possession normally needs to be passed in his favour.”

Framed Questions of Law Found Irrelevant – Appeal Dismissed

The Second Appeal was admitted in 2014 on three legal questions: whether the bar on execution continued after 2006; whether part-payment indicated readiness; and whether the stipulated sale date needed extension. However, Justice Joshi found none of these to be “substantial questions of law” as required under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Kiccha Sugar Company Ltd. v. Roofrite Pvt. Ltd. and Chandrabhan through L.Rs. v. Saraswati, the Court clarified: “A substantial question of law is one which, if answered in favour of the appellant, must have the effect of overturning the decision of the suit… That is not the case here.”

The Court ruled: “Even if the questions of law framed in the appeal are answered in favour of the defendant, the final outcome of the suit will remain the same.”

Additional Evidence Application Also Dismissed – Documents Would Not Change Outcome

The appellant had moved two civil applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, seeking to produce new evidence showing continued prohibition on sale of land under the 1999 Act. This included a 2021 certificate from the Deputy Executive Engineer and a government resolution from 2006.

The Court held that the documents were not material to the determination of the appeal: “Even if the documents are allowed and contents read in evidence, the final outcome of the suit will remain the same.” Accordingly, the civil applications were also dismissed.

Pending Specific Performance Suit to Be Decided Separately

The Court noted that the appellant has independently filed a suit for specific performance of the sale agreement. Justice Joshi clarified that “the said suit shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law,” making it clear that today’s ruling was confined to the question of possession.

The Bombay High Court’s judgment reinforces the binding nature of Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act, 1908, and extinguishes any hope of relying on unregistered agreements for possessory rights. The Second Appeal was dismissed, confirming that ownership, once proved, cannot be defeated by mere possession taken under an unenforceable contract.

“The Appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.” concluded Justice Rohit W. Joshi.

Date of Decision: 23 May 2025