JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Defendants are the Appellants against a confirming judgment in a suit for permanent injunction. 2. Plaintiff filed the suit for restraining the Defendants from trespassing upon and interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit .land on the allegation that the Defendants were the owners of the suit land in village Khajuripada, P. S. Serango, the land having been described fully in the Schedule of the plaint and the said land, according to the Plaintiff, was leased 'out to him under Ext. 2 dated 5-5-1962 and possession was delivered to him. The said Ext. 2 is an unregistered deed. Later on, on 13-2-1966 under another deed (Ext. 1), the Plaintiff purchased the 1 and. The said Ext. 1 is also' an unregistered deed. While the Plaintiff was in possession, on 2-6-1976, the Defendants threatened to trespass and hence the present suit. It is also the case of' the Plaintiff in the plaint that the Plaintiff was paying Rajbhag and cess to Defendant No. 1 all along. 3. The Defendants in their written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint and pleaded that the land being service Inam land was inalienable and stood vested in the State of Orissa free from all encumbrances under the provisions of the Ganjam and Boudh (Village Offices Abolition) Act, 1969. Thereafter the land was settled with Defendant No. 1 after due inquiry and in this view of the matter, neither Ext. 1 nor 2 would confer any title on the Plaintiff. It is the further case of the Defendants that they are all along possessing the suit land on their own right title and interest. 4. On these pleadings, the learned Munsif framed a number of issues and came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff had no title over the suit land and the title in respect of the land lay with Defendant No. 1. After coming to the aforesaid conclusion the learned Munsif further held that the Plaintiff came into possession of the land pursuant to the agreement of the year 1962 (Ext. 2). and therefore, could protect the said possession by application of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Accordingly he decreed the suit. 5. On appeal the said conclusion of the trial court having been affirmed, the present second appeal has been filed. 6. 2). and therefore, could protect the said possession by application of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Accordingly he decreed the suit. 5. On appeal the said conclusion of the trial court having been affirmed, the present second appeal has been filed. 6. Plaintiff's title having been negatived by both the courts below, the sole question for consideration is whether the provision of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act can at all have any application. Mr. Ramdas., the learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that both the documents namely Exts. 1 and. 2 not being registered though compulsorily registrable are inadmissible in evidence and' do not confer any title on the Plaintiff. Mr. Murty appearing for the Respondent also does not assail this proposition and in fact, the courts below have not come to hold that the Plaintiff has established his title by virtue of the two documents. But yet remains the question as to whether the Plaintiff being found in possession can be said to be protected u/s 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, or not In this connection two questions arise for consideration namely: (i) whether the pre-conditions of Section 53-A of the . Transfer of Property Act have been satisfied in the present case or not and (ii) what is the effect of the vesting of the land with the State free from all encumbrances and the subsequent settlement of the land with Defendant No. 1. So far as the first question is concerned, I find that the Plaintiff has not laid any foundation in the plaint so as to attract the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.. In order to attract the said provision what are necessary to be pleaded and proved are that there was a contract to transfer for consideration of any immovable property by writing the transferee has taken possession of the property in part performance of the contract and continues in possession the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract and further though the contract is require to be registered has not been registered. All these ingredients must be satisfied so that the transferee or any person claiming under him can protect the possession as a seal against any action by the transferor. All these ingredients must be satisfied so that the transferee or any person claiming under him can protect the possession as a seal against any action by the transferor. But unfortunately, the averments in the plaint are totally silent to establish any such right u/s 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and on the other hand clearly make out a case of having purchased the land from the Defendants, the Plaintiff is in cultivating possession. Not only the-averments in the plaint are totally insufficient but also the evidence on record is practically nil and the courts below have also not found that an the requirements of Section 53-A have been satisfied in the present case. In this view of the matter, both the courts below committed gross error of law in decreeing the Plaintiff's suit by applying Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. 7. That apart, it is conceded that the land being service Inam land was inalienable on the date the alleged sale under Ext. 1 took place,' It is also conceded that under the provisions of the Ganjam and Boudh (Village Offices Abolition) Act, the land vested in the State of Orissa free from all encumbrances. Consequently, possession of the Plaintiff, if any, after the vesting would not confer any right on the Plaintiff go as to claim an order of injunction against the Defendants. The subsequent settlement of the land by the competent authority with Defendant No. 1 cannot be taken into account to attract the provision of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act in favour of the Plaintiff., The doctrine of part performance contemplated u/s 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act cannot have any application where the transfer itself was not permissible under law and yet the transferee came to possess the land. Then again since the land stood vested with the State free from all encumbrances, the prior possession of the so-called transferee cannot be protected by application of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. On this score also the impugned judgment and decree of both the courts below cannot be sustained. 8. In the result, the judgment and the decrees of both the courts below are set aside and the Plaintiff's suit is dismissed. The second appeal is allowed with costs. Final Result : Allowed