Judgment :- 1. The second defendant is the appellant before this Court and the first defendant is the respondent. The plaintiff is the wife of the second defendant and the first defendant is the brother of the plaintiff. The suit properties originally belonged to Kannammal, the mother of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The said Kannammal executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff, the second defendant and her other five daughters on 24th November, 1956. Subsequently, the first defendant also obtained another settlement deed in his favour from his mother and in pursuance thereof came into possession of the entire properties. The plaintiff filed O. S. No. 42 of 1969 against the first defendant contending that the settlement deed executed by her mother in favour of the first defendant is not valid in law and demanded partition and separate possession of her 1/7th share in plaint items 1 to 11 and 1/14th share in plaint items 12 to 23. The other sisters of the plaintiff were not impleaded, as the first defendant had obtained a release, dated 24th November, 1956 from his other sisters by paying them Rs. 2000 each. The second defendant was impleaded in the suit as he was also entitled to a similar share in the suit properties. The second defendant remained ex parte in the suit. The first defendant ultimately compromised the suit and a preliminary decree was passed declaring the plaintiffs title to 11th share in all the suit items. The plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No. 1472 of 1972, to pass a final decree and notice was ordered to the defendants. At that stage, the second defendant filed an application in I. A. No. 1903 of 1972 and sought allotment of his 1/14th share in the suit properties by paying the necessary court-fees. Overruling the objections of the first defendant, the trial Court passed a final decree in favour of the plaintiff and the second defendant. At that stage, the second defendant filed an application in I. A. No. 1903 of 1972 and sought allotment of his 1/14th share in the suit properties by paying the necessary court-fees. Overruling the objections of the first defendant, the trial Court passed a final decree in favour of the plaintiff and the second defendant. On appeal by the first defendant, the lower Appellate Court held that the passing of a final decree straightway in favour of the second defendant without an amendment of the preliminary decree declaring his right in the suit properties or a supplemental preliminary decree to that effect was not proper and the final decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal after adjudicating the dispute regarding the right of the second defendant to get a share in the suit properties. After remand, the second defendant filed I.A. No. 1322 of 1974 to amend the preliminary decree declaring his 1/14th share in the suit properties and then pass a final decree in his favour in accordance with the amended preliminary decree. In that application, the first defendant filed a counter stating that the second defendant received Rs. 1500, from him and executed the varthamanam letter Ex.B1 disclaiming his interest in the suit properties and releasing his share in favour of the first defendant and he is entitled to claim relief under S. 53-A, Transfer of Property Act. The first defendant also pleaded adverse possession. The claim of adverse possession was negatived by the trial Court on the ground that the first defendant is in possession only as a co-owner. The trial Court held that the varthamanam letter Ex. B 1 is a true and genuine document and the first defendant cannot claim protection under S. 53-A, Transfer of Property Act as it can operate only as a release deed and not a conveyance or contract of transfer between the parties and granted a preliminary decree in favour of the second defendant declaring his 1/14th share in the suit properties. On appeal, the lower appellate Court held that Ex. On appeal, the lower appellate Court held that Ex. B-1 can be construed as a deed of conveyance and since all the requirements of Sec. 53 A. Transfer of Property Act are complied with, the first defendant is entitled to protection under S. 53-A Transfer of Property Act and on this finding the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. Hence the present second appeal by the second defendant. 2. The learned counsel for the second defendant (appellant) contended that under Ex. B 1, the second defendant has merely released in favour of the first defendant the rights conferred on him under the settlement deed, dated 24th November, 1956 executed by his mother-in-law and being a release deed extinguishing the rights of the second defendant, it cannot operate as a conveyance and hence Ex. B 1 cannot be construed as a contract of transfer of immovable property within the meaning of S. 53-A, Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court, in the decision reported in Kuppusami Cheitiar v. Arumugha Chetti 1 has held that a registered instrument styled as a release deed releasing the right, title and interest of the executant in any property in favour of releasee for valuable consideration may operate as a conveyance, if the document clearly discloses an intention to effect a transfer and a release deed by using words of sufficient amplitude can transfer title to one having no title before the transfer. A document, though styled as a release deed can be construed as a deed of conveyance if the words used therein are of sufficient amplitude to show transfer of title to one having no title before the transfer and the operative words used therein show a transfer of the right, title and interest of the executant in any property in favour of the releasee for valuable consideration. Then the release deed can be construed as a deed of conveyance and a contract to transfer immovable property for consideration for purposes of S. 53-A Transfer of Property Act. 3. In the instant case, the rights conferred on the second defendant by the settlement deed executed by his mother-in-law has been released by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant under Ex. 3. In the instant case, the rights conferred on the second defendant by the settlement deed executed by his mother-in-law has been released by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant under Ex. B1 and the second defendant has unequivocally stated that he has delivered possession of the properties to the first defendant and he or his heirs will have no claim over the properties. As the words used in Ex. B 1 show that there has been a release of the rights of the second defendant in favour of the first defendant by transferring his title and interest in the suit properties which he has acquired under the settlement deed executed in his favour by his mother-in-law, there is a contract of transfer of immovable property as contemplated under S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel for the second defendant (appellant) contended that in the Supreme Court case quoted above, the release was by a registered instrument and there could be no transfer of right, title and interest under Ex. B1 which is an unregistered document and hence there could be no transfer of right title and interest under Ex. B 1 and as the contract relied on cannot be specifically enforced, S. 53-A Transfer of Property Act will have no application. 4. The contention that S. 53-A Transfer of Property Act will have no application unless the contract relied on can be specifically enforced is to put the proposition in too broad and wide manner. The object of this section is to protect persons in cases where there is a contract which is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be enforced by filing a suit for specific performance. The contract contemplated in S. 53-A Transfer of Property Act must be a valid and completed contract and not a contract forbidden by law or based on negotiations which had not been matured into a contract. As Ex. B 1 is a completed contract of transfer of immovable property for consideration valid in law, that is sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of S. 53-A Transfer of Property Act and he question that it is an unregistered document is not relevant for purposes of S. 53-A Transfer of Property Act. 5. As Ex. B 1 is a completed contract of transfer of immovable property for consideration valid in law, that is sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of S. 53-A Transfer of Property Act and he question that it is an unregistered document is not relevant for purposes of S. 53-A Transfer of Property Act. 5. The learned counsel for the second defendant (appellant) next contended that the second defendant continued in possession of the land and he has not done any act in furtherance of the agreement for sale, Ex. B 1 as required by the last words of the second clause of S. 53-A, Transfer of Property Act and secondly, the continued possession of the suit properties is not referable to Ex. B 1 and the requirements of S. 53-A Transfer of Property Act are not satisfied. In Ma That v. Ma Sa Mai , 1 the purchaser was already in possession of the property as mortgagee and then continued in possession after the agreement to sell had been concluded and a portion of the price was paid in addition to the amount already due on the mortgage and it was held that such payment was an unequivocal act which could not be referred to any matter other than the agreement for sale, and is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of S. 53-A Transfer of Property Act, namely, that some act must be done in furtherance of the contract. In Mohanial v. Prithvi Raj , 2 it was pointed out that in such cases the only act open to the mortgagee or the vendee may be the payment of the price, particularly if he is already in possession and the payment of the money is made in furtherance of the contract, there is no reason why it should not be treated as an act in furtherance of the contract. This Court in Gopala v. S. V. Kanaran , 3 has held that if the payment is made under the document, the payment of money can be treated as an act in furtherance of the contract within the requirements of S. 53-A, Transfer of Property Act. 6. If the transferee is already in possession, in majority of cases the only act that can be performed by the transferee in pursuance of the contract is acceptance of the money. 6. If the transferee is already in possession, in majority of cases the only act that can be performed by the transferee in pursuance of the contract is acceptance of the money. If the money paid by the transfer or is the price agreed upon by the parties and if there is no indication to show that the money has not been paid for any reason other than the contract itself, then the acceptance of the money by the transferee cm be construed as an act done in pursuance of the contract. As the payment by the transferor is an unequivocal act referrable to the contract of transfer and the acceptance of the money by the transferee, especially when it is not shown that the money was paid for any reason other than the contract itself, it is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S. 53-A Transfer of Property Act, namely, some act done by the transferee in pursuance of the contract. In the alternative, when the transferee is already in possession at the time of the contract, it must be shown from the contract itself or from some other evidence that the continuance of his possession was with reference to or pursuant to the contract of sale. That can be treated as an act in furtherance of the contract as required by the last words of the second clause of S. 53-A. 7. In the present case, the acceptance of the sum of Rs. 1500 specified under Ex. B 1 by the second defendant is an unequivocal act referable to the contract and that is sufficient to constitute some act done by the transferee for purposes of S. 53-A, Transfer of property Act. The unequivocal recital in Ex. B 1 that the second defendant is relinquishing all his interest in the suit properties and put the first defendant in possession of the suit properties is the clearest indication to show that the continued possession of the first defendant was with reference and pursuant to Ex. B 1. 8. To sum up, Ex.B 1 is a valid and completed contract, under Ex. B 1 the second defendant has contracted to transfer his right and interest in the suit properties in favour of the first defendant and it can operate as a deed of conveyance. B 1. 8. To sum up, Ex.B 1 is a valid and completed contract, under Ex. B 1 the second defendant has contracted to transfer his right and interest in the suit properties in favour of the first defendant and it can operate as a deed of conveyance. The continued possession of the suit properties by the first defendant is in pursuance of Ex.B 1. The acceptance of the sum of Ri.1500 specified in Ex. B 1 by the second defendant is an act done by the second defendant in pursuance of Ex.B 1. Thus, all the requirements of S. 53-A, Transfer of Property Act has been complied with and the first defendant is entitled to the relief under S. 53-A, Transfer of Property Act. 9. In the result, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are confirmed and the second appeal fails and stands dismissed without costs.