N.M. KASLIWAL, J.—This is a plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Ajmer dated iO-4-1967 affirming the judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge, Kishangarh dated 13-10-66 2. The plaintiff appellant filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction against the defendants in respect of a house situated in village Harmora. The plaintiffs case was that the defendants took a house on" rent excepting, a Kothari on a monthly tenancy commencing from Sudi 1st of every month. The rent agreed was Rs. 50/- per year. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 133-30 as arrears of rent and Rs. 13-50 as mesne profits and claimed eviction. The defendants in their joint written statement took the plea inter alia that though, they were tenant of the plaintiff, but on 19-4-59, the plaintiff sold the house for Rs. 2200/-and handed over possession of the same and the relationship of land-lord and tenant came to an end thereafter. They further submitted that the plaintiff obtained a sum of Rs. 1000/- by way of earnest money, but thereafter, did not get the sale-deed registered that the defendants were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The defendants, thus, claimed protection under Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court framed the following issues : 1- vk;k eqn~nk;yge eqn~nbZ ds fdjk;snkj gSa 2- vk;k eqn~nk;yge esa eqn~nbZ 133@30 u-a iS- o mesne profits ds 13&50 N.P. ckdh gSA 3- vk;k eqn~nk;yge dks eqn~nbZ ds edku eqrnkfo;k dk cspku dj fn;k rFkk /kujkfk dCtk nsdj 1000@&: izkIr djyh rFkk bl dkj.k 53¼A½ T.P. Act, izLrqr ckn esa vkdf"kZr gksrh gS vkSj bldk nkos ij D;k vlj gSA 4- nknjlh D;k gSA 3. The trial court decided all the issues in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. Learned District Judge also up-held the judgment of the trial court. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiffs in this court. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has argued that there was a condition in the agreement to sell dated 19-4-59 that the sale-deed shall be executed within a period of four months and in case, there would be default on the part of the vendor, the vendees shall be entitled to receive Rs. 1500/- by way of damages including the amount of Rs. 1500/- by way of damages including the amount of Rs. 1,000/-received as earnest money by the vendor, and in case of default on the part of the vendees, the vendor shall be entitled to forfeit Rs. 500/- out of the amount of Rs. 1,000/-received as earnest money by the vendor. It is, thus, submitted that in view of this condition in the agreement for sale, the defendants at the most were entitled for damages and were not entitled to claim any right under Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of Property Act. It is also submitted that the suit for specific performance itself, having become barred by time no defence under Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of Property Act shall be available to the defendants. It is also argued that there was no agreement for the sale of the entire house and even if, it may be admitted that the defendants were in possession of part of the house as tenants, they were not entitled to the defence under Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of Property Act. Learned counsel has further argued that the defendants did not pay the balance money within the time agreed in the contract for sale, and as such, when the defendants were not entitled to claim any specific performance of the contract, they could not be held entitled to claim protection under Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of Property Act. It is further submitted that under Section 10 and 12 of the Specific Relief Act, the defendants were not entitled to claim a decree for specific performance and as such, they could not get any relief under Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of Property Act. 5. I see no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. In granting relief under Sec. 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, the question whether a contract is specifically enforceable or not, has no bearing at all. The provisions of Secs. 10 and 12 of the Specific Relief Act are quite distinct from Sec. 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act. It has been !aid-down in Rai Saheb Sharat Chandra Das Purkeyasthan vs. Md. Ramjan Choudhary(l) and Jahangir Begum vs. Gulam Ali Ahmed (2), that Sec. 53(A) applies even when the specific performance of a contract is barred or the contract is otherwise unenforceable. It has been !aid-down in Rai Saheb Sharat Chandra Das Purkeyasthan vs. Md. Ramjan Choudhary(l) and Jahangir Begum vs. Gulam Ali Ahmed (2), that Sec. 53(A) applies even when the specific performance of a contract is barred or the contract is otherwise unenforceable. The doctrine of part performance embodied in Sec. 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act is an equitable doctrine. The object of this section is to prevent a transferor or his successor in interest from taking any advantage on account of the non-registration of the document, provided, the transferee has performed his part of the contract and in pursuance thereof, has taken possession of some immoveable property. This right is available to the transferee as defence in order to protect his possession. Thus, a defendant in an action of ejectment may, in certain circumstances, effectively plead possession under an unregistered contract of sale in defence to the action. Thus, there is no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that when no suit for specific performance could be filed by the defendants, they were not entitled to any defence under Sec. 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the defendants being not in possession of the entire property agreed to be sold in their favour, they were not entitled to the protection under Sec. 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, suffice it to say that this objection was not raised or argued in the courts below. That apart I see no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in Sec. 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, the words of the property or any part thereof, do not occur after the words or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession, in para 2 of Section 53 (A) as such where a transferee already in possession, continues in possession, he should be in possession of the whole property and not a part thereof. What the learned counsel wants to argue is that in para-2 of Section 53(A) the words "property or any part thereof," should only be read for a transferee who has taken possession of the property and as these words are missing for a transferee being already in possession, such transferee can only take the advantage, in case, he was already in possession of the whole of the property. In my view, this interpretation put by the learned counsel for the appellants is not correct in relation to a transferee being already in possession. There is no mention of any property for a transferee being already in possession and as such, the words "property or any part thereof" shall have to be taken into consideration for such transferee also for giving full effect to part-2 of Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of Property Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant might have some force in case the words "of the property" would have been used after the words "transferee, being already in possession" in part-2 of Section 53 (A). The absence of such words clearly indicates that the property or any part thereof applies in relation to a transferee being already in possession and who continues to remain in possession after the transfer. 6. Thus, I find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.