JUDGMENT - A.D. TATED, J.:---This appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd November, 1981 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, on Notice of Motion No. 737 of 1981 dated 12th February, 1981 taken out by the plaintiff in S.C. Suit No. 691 of 1981. 2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") filed S.C. Suit No. 691 in the Bombay, City Civil Court against the appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the Defendants") for specific performance of an agreement dated 23rd January, 1978 whereby the defendant No. 1 is alleged to have agreed to sell 224 square yards of land out of Survey No. 357 situate at Sindhi Society, 8th Road, Chembur, Bombay 400071. The plaintiff averred that the defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit land admeasuring 224 square yards marked in red boundary on the sketch, annexed to the plaint and market Exhibit 'B', to him for Rs. 9,000/- and that he received Rs. 4,500/- and the remaining consideration was to be paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant on his making out marketable and clear title to the plot and on his executing a deed of conveyance in respect of the said plot in favour of the plaintiff. A copy of the writing evidencing the said contract is annexed to the plaint and market Exhibit 'A'. The Plaintiff further averred that the defendant No. 1 put the plaintiff in possession of the land in suit which he had agreed to sell him in pursuance of the agreement for sale. He further averred that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the defendant No. 1 avoided to perform his part of the contract. He further averred that the defendant No. 1 acted dishonestly and fraudulently and after he put up some construction on the plot in suit complained to the municipal authorities against the said construction and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay pulled down the construction being unauthorised. He also averred that the defendant No. 1 after entering into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the suit land to him entered into an agreement with the defendant No. 2 for sale of the whole plot bearing Survey No. 357. He also averred that the defendant No. 1 after entering into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the suit land to him entered into an agreement with the defendant No. 2 for sale of the whole plot bearing Survey No. 357. The plaintiff also averred that the defendant No. 1 was interfering with his possession over the suit land and, therefore, the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing his possession. On those averments the plaintiff claimed specific performance of the agreement for sale in his favour and also claimed a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing his possession on the plot of land marked in red boundary on the sketch Ex. 'E' to the plaint. 3. The plaintiff took out a Notice of Motion and claimed a temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from entering on the suit land and disturbing his possession thereof. 4. The defendant No. 1 opposed the Notice of Motion by filing his affidavit dated 25th June, 1981. He denied that he entered into an agreement for sale in respect of 224 square yards of land out of Survey No. 357 to the plaintiff. He also denied that he put the plaintiff in possession of the suit land in pursuance of the agreement for sale. His case was that in the month of January 1978 the plaintiff approached him and expressed his desire to enter into an agreement for sale for a portion of land admeasuring 224 square yards. The defendant No. 1 informed the plaintiff about his inability to sell 224 square yards of land except in accordance with the terms of the consent decree in Suit No. 1204 of 1950 whereunder his mother had obtained 22 acres of land of Survey No. 357 on lease for 99 years commencing from the date of the decree. As per the said decree, the assignment and sub-lease of the said land could be permitted with the permission of the Collector on payment of the premium to be fixed by the Collector. The defendant No. 1 states that he produced a copy of the decree before the plaintiff for his inspection. There upon the plaintiff told him that he would pay to him an amount of Rs. The defendant No. 1 states that he produced a copy of the decree before the plaintiff for his inspection. There upon the plaintiff told him that he would pay to him an amount of Rs. 3,500/- for meeting the expenses of and incidental to obtaining sanction for the sale of the suit land, and he also told him that he would enter into a formal agreement for sale. Thereafter the plaintiff paid Rs. 3,500/- to the defendant No. 1 in two diverse sums of Rs. 1,000/- in or about July 1977 and Rs. 2,500/- in or about January 1978 and obtained a writing from him, being Ex. 'A' to the plaint, on a clear understanding that he would pay to him the balance amount of Rs. 500/- and would enter into an agreement for sale. The defendant No. 1 further states that the plaintiff failed and neglected to pay the balance amount of Rs. 500/- as agreed and on the contrary the plaintiff forcibly took possession of 224 square yards of land and started unauthorised construction thereon. Thereupon the defendant No. 1 lodged a complaint with the municipal authorities, who took action and demolished the construction. The defendant No. 1 denied that the alleged plot of land was demarcated on Survey No. 357 and that the possession of the land of the said plot was given to the plaintiff. He submitted that the copy of the writing (Ex. 'A' to the plaint) is vague and indefinite, as there was no description of the property. He also pointed out that the rough sketch showing the said plot of land alleged to have been agreed to be sold to the plaintiff did not indicate the boundaries or the location of the said plot and hence the said alleged writing, a copy of which is Ex. 'A' to the plaint, had no legal effect and was not binding on him. He also denied that he agreed to sell the whole plot of Survey No. 357 to the defendant No. 2. According to him, he never delivered possession of land out of his field Survey No. 357 to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff forcibly occupied some portion out of that land and he was not entitled to the injunction sought by him. According to him, he never delivered possession of land out of his field Survey No. 357 to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff forcibly occupied some portion out of that land and he was not entitled to the injunction sought by him. The plaintiff in support of his notice of motion filed an affidavit dated 4th February, 1981 and an affidavit in rejoinder dated 23rd July, 1981. 5. The learned trial Judge, after considering the affidavits filed by the parties and the documents produced by them, held that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case indicating that there was an agreement between him and the defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit plot whereby the defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit plot to him. He also found that the plaintiff prima facie made out that he got possession of the suit land in February 1978 in pursuance of the agreement for sale and in part performance thereof and, therefore, the present possession of the plaintiff over the suit plot was necessary to be protected. On those findings, he allowed the notice of motion in terms of prayer (a) thereof. 6. The learned Counsel for the defendants contends that the writing, a copy of which is Ex. 'A' to the plaint, which is relied upon by the plaintiff as an agreement for sale, is vague and it does not set out the terms of the agreement. He also submits that Survey No. 357 belonging to the defendant No. 1 is of the area of 22 acres. It is not specified in the writing which portion admeasuring 224 square yards out of the said 22 acres of land was agreed to be sold to the defendant No. 1, and therefore, from the writing it is not possible to know exactly which portion of the land out of Survey No. 357 was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff. He further pointed out that the sketch marked Exhibit 'B' annexed to the plaint was not drawn to scale and on the basis of this sketch it was not possible to locate the land alleged to have been sold by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. He also pointed out that it was nowhere mentioned in the writing that possession of the land was delivered or agreed to be delivered before execution of the deed of conveyance. He also pointed out that it was nowhere mentioned in the writing that possession of the land was delivered or agreed to be delivered before execution of the deed of conveyance. He pointed out that the plaintiff in the plaint nowhere stated on what date the suit land was located by measurement on the spot and was delivered in possession of the plaintiff. According to him, there is nothing on record to show that the defendant No. 1 in pursuance of the alleged agreement for sale delivered possession of 224 square yards of land out of Survey No. 357 to the plaintiff. He submits that as it is not possible from the documents and the evidence on record to locate the site alleged to have been sold by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff under the agreement dated 23rd January, 1978, the plaintiff cannot invoke the provisions of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to protect his possession over the suit land which he has forcibly obtained. 7. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that the area of 224 square yards of land was demarcated out of the field Survey No. 357 and its possession was delivered by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff and thereafter the plaintiff put up construction on that land; but as the construction was put up without obtaining the necessary permission from the municipal authorities, that construction was pulled down by the municipal authorities on the complaint of the defendant No. 1. The learned Counsel contends that the plaintiff served various notices on the defendant No. 1 to perform his part of the agreement but he did not reply those notices and also did not perform his part of his agreement. On the contrary, he submits, the defendant No. 1 tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and, therefore, the plaintiff had to take out the notice of motion for obtaining a temporary injunction to protect his possession over the suit land. According to the learned Counsel, the learned trial Judge, under the circumstances, was right in making the notice of motion absolute in terms of prayer (a) thereof. 8. The writing dated 23rd January, 1978, a copy of which is Ex. According to the learned Counsel, the learned trial Judge, under the circumstances, was right in making the notice of motion absolute in terms of prayer (a) thereof. 8. The writing dated 23rd January, 1978, a copy of which is Ex. 'A' to the plaint, relied upon by the plaintiff as agreement for sale, reads as follows:--- "Received Rs. 4500/- Rupees four thousand five hundred for 224 Square Yards and balance 4500/- four thousand five hundred for agreement agricultural for which nominal fine will have to be paid to me (that is, the defendant No. 1), for final agreement." (Bracketed portion supplied.) The land Survey No. 357 belonging to the defendant No. 1 is of the area of 22 acres. It is not mentioned in Ex. 'A' to the plaint which portion of the said land was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he obtained possession of the said land from the defendant No. 1, and that land was as per the sketch Ex. 'B' to the plaint. Exhibit 'B' to the plaint is not drawn to scale. No measurements or dimensions are recorded in the plan. A rectangular portion is shown as the plaintiff's plot in suit and to the east is written "Open Land". On the basis of the sketch Ex. 'B' to the plaint, which is not drawn to scale and on which no measurements or dimensions are recorded, it is not possible to locate the land which the plaintiff avers to have agreed to purchase from the defendant No. 1. With the help of Exhibit 'B' to the plaint and the averments in the plaint it is not possible to locate which 224 square yards of land out of Survey No. 357 was agreed to be sold by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. 9. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act reads as follows:--- "53-A. Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession continue in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract. and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that the contract, though required to be registered, has not been registered, or, where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed thereof by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract : Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof." The plaintiff claims that the defendant No. 1 agreed to sell 224 square yards of land out of Survey No. 357 to him and delivered possession thereof. There is nothing on record to indicate that after the alleged agreement for sale the property was surveyed and the location of 224 square yards of land agreed to be sold by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff was determined. Had such location been determined, the plaintiff would have been in a position to file a map drawn to scale showing the dimensions and the boundaries of the said land. From the sketch Ex. 'B' to the plaint it is not possible to know what is the length and breadth of the land shown therein as the plaintiff's plot in suit. It is also not possible to know what is the distance between the western boundary of the plaintiff's plot and the road which is shown to the west of the plaintiff's plot. The transferee can protect his possession of the land against the transferor under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, and in order to invoke the provisions of section 53-A it is necessary that the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainly from the writing brought about to evidence the agreement for sale. In the present case from the writing, a copy of which is Ex. In the present case from the writing, a copy of which is Ex. 'A' to the plaint, it is not possible to known which land admeasuring 224 square yards out of 22 acres of land, out of Survey No. 357 belonging to the defendant No. 1 was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff. The writing also does not indicate that in pursuance of the agreement for sale, possession of the land was delivered to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot defend his possession as against the owner of the land from whom he is said to have agreed to purchase the land with the aid of the provisions of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. If the vendee somehow enter into possessions of the land but if it is not referable to the agreement for sale and is not in part performance of the contract, the vendee cannot protect his possession of the land as against the true owner on the ground that he has entered into an agreement for purchase of the said land in the present case, it is true that the defendant No. 1 did not reply to some of the notices served by the plaintiff on him, but only on the basis it cannot be held that the plaintiff obtained possession of the suit land in part performance of the agreement for sale, dated 23rd January, 1978. Consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to the temporary injunction sought by him. The order of the learned trial Judge granting the notice of motion of the plaintiff cannot be sustained. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order is hereby set aside and the notice of motion of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Costs of this appeal shall be costs in the cause. Appeal allowed. -----