JUDGMENT S.K. Pande, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment-decree dated 23-11-1989, passed by 1st ADJ, Teekamgarh, in C. A. No. 22-A/84, affirming the judgment-decree dated 24-2-1983, passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Class-2, Teekamgarh, in C. S. No. l-A/82, plaintiff/appellants have preferred this appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 2. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below erred in law in failing to appreciate that there was no evidence worth the name produced by the defendant to establish the fact that in the year 1965 there had been any agreement between him and Ganga Sahu whereunder on receipt of Rs. 100/- as earnest money, Ganga Sahu had agreed to sell the suit lands bearing Kh. Nos. 2681 to 2684 to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 900/-? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Courts below erred in law in failing to appreciate that there were quite a few strong circumstances emerging from the evidence produced in the case which militated against the fact of Ganga Sahu having entered into any agreement to sell with the defendant as alleged? 3. Whether, otherwise also, the defendant having failed to enforce the performance of the alleged agreement to sell entered into with him against Ganga Sahu within the period of limitation available to him for the purpose he was neither entitled to claim any title in respect of the lands in question nor protect his alleged possession over the said lands under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act? 4. Whether after the death of Ganga Sahu, the alleged fresh agreement dated 26-2-1968 said to have been executed by Ganga Sahu's second wife Gunguch in favour of the defendant was not only a highly suspicious document but also did not bind the plaintiffs i.e. Ganga Sahu's other wife Rukmini, five sons and four daughters? 5. Whether, otherwise, also Ganga Sahu's alleged second wife Gunguch has no legal authority to execute the alleged fresh agreement dated 26-2-1968 in favour of the defendant and bind Ganga Sahu's other wife Rukmini and minor sons and daughters? 6. 5. Whether, otherwise, also Ganga Sahu's alleged second wife Gunguch has no legal authority to execute the alleged fresh agreement dated 26-2-1968 in favour of the defendant and bind Ganga Sahu's other wife Rukmini and minor sons and daughters? 6. Whether the alleged fresh agreement dated 26-2-1968 entered into between the defendant and Gunguch was illegal and invalid for the reason that in case the property was joint family property of Ganga Sahu no legal necessity whatsoever had either been pleaded or proved and in case the same was his self acquired property no permission to enter into any such agreement had been obtained by Gunguch under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act? 7. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, when right from the time of death of Ganga Sahu on 3-3-1967 upto the year 1978-79, the names of Ganga Sahu's legal heirs i.e. the plaintiffs were recorded as holders of the lands in question in Bhumiswami right, there was no basis for the finding that the defendant had ever been in possession of the said lands pursuant to any alleged agreement to sell executed in his favour. 3. Plaintiff/appellants instituted C. S. No. l-A/82 in the court of Civil Judge Class-II, Teekamgarh for declaration, injunction, restoration of possession of suit lands and recovery of damages against the defendant/respondent Babulal on the ground that husband of plaintiff/appellant-Rukmini and father of plaintiff/appellants No. 1 to 9 late Ganga Sahu was the recorded owner of suit lands Khasra Nos. 2681, 2682, 2683, and 2684, Village Khargapur, Tehsil and Distt. Teekamgarh. On his death, plaintiff/appellants became owners of tie suit lands, however, the defendant/respondent Babulal on the basis of document dated 26-2-1968 (Ex. D/l) got mutated his name in the revenue record and dispossessed them from the suit land. Defendant/respondent resisted the suit stating inter alia that late Ganga Sahu died in the year 1966. During his life time he agreed to sell the suit land to the defendant/respondent for a sum of Rs. 900/-and had received Rs. 100/- the earnest money. Late Ganga Sahu himself placed the defendant/respondent in possession of the suit lands. After the death of late Ganga Sahu, plaintiff/appellants and widow Gunguch on 26-2-1968 further confirmed the agreement and received Rs. 800/- from the defendant/respondent. Plaintiff/appellants and late Gunguch widow (first wife) executed agreement (Ex. D/l) in favour of defendant/respondent. 900/-and had received Rs. 100/- the earnest money. Late Ganga Sahu himself placed the defendant/respondent in possession of the suit lands. After the death of late Ganga Sahu, plaintiff/appellants and widow Gunguch on 26-2-1968 further confirmed the agreement and received Rs. 800/- from the defendant/respondent. Plaintiff/appellants and late Gunguch widow (first wife) executed agreement (Ex. D/l) in favour of defendant/respondent. Accordingly, the defendant/respondent remained in continuous possession of suit lands. Plaintiff/appellants objected to the mutation of the defendant/respondent. However, vide order dated 8-10-1979, Naib Tehsildar Khargapur mutated the name of the defendant/respondent. The appeal against the said order, preferred by the plaintiff/appellants in the court of SDO, Teekamgarh was dismissed vide order dated 30-6-1980. The defendant/respondent was ever willing to seek the registered sale deed from the plaintiff/appellants but they avoided and started claiming title over the suit lands. The Civil Judge vide judgment dated 14-2-1983 in C. S. No. l-A/32 held that late Ganga Sahu himself sold the suit lands to the defendant/respondent Babulal. The defendant/respondent Babulal was placed in possession of the suit lands by late Ganga Sahu himself. Subsequently, on 26-2-1968, plaintiff/appellants and late Gunguch received Rs. 800/- the balance amount and agreed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of defendant/respondent Babulal. Therefore, possession of the defendant/respondent Babulal is protected under section 53-A of the T. P. Act. Accordingly, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, plaintiff/appellants preferred C. A. No. 22-A/84 in the court of 1st ADJ, Teekamgarh. Affirming the aforesaid finding recorded by the Civil Judge, the court below vide impugned judgment dated 23-11-1989 dismissed the appeal. 4. DW/1 Babulal stated that the suit lands are known as Bunkariya Kunwa. These lands were held by late Ganga Sahu. Late Ganga Sahu agreed to sell the suit lands to him for a sum of Rs. 900/- and received Rs. 100/-. Late Ganga Sahu placed him in possession of the suit lands. After the death of late Ganga Sahu his widow Gunguch and plaintiff/appellants having received Rs. 800 from him, agreed to execute the registered sale deed in his favour. Late Gunguch and plaintiff/appellants, accordingly, executed agreement dated 26-2-1968 (Ex. D/l). PW/1 Ghanshyam in cross-examination has admitted his signature A to A on Ex. D/l. Dw/1 Babulal has further stated that Ex. D/l agreement was signed by the plaintiff/appellant Rukmini, the other widow of late Ganga Sahu and Ghanshyam, Bhagchand, Kashiram and Halke also. Late Gunguch and plaintiff/appellants, accordingly, executed agreement dated 26-2-1968 (Ex. D/l). PW/1 Ghanshyam in cross-examination has admitted his signature A to A on Ex. D/l. Dw/1 Babulal has further stated that Ex. D/l agreement was signed by the plaintiff/appellant Rukmini, the other widow of late Ganga Sahu and Ghanshyam, Bhagchand, Kashiram and Halke also. This statement of DW/1 Babulal is fully supported by DW/2 who was present at the time of execution of agreement dated 26-2-1968 (Ex. D/l) DW/3 Ramdayal is other witness to state that late Gunguch and plaintiff/appellants confirmed the sale and executed document Ex. D/l on receipt of Rs. 800/- from defendant/respondent DW/1 Babulal. DW/4 Gunthe, DW/5 Karoda have stated that defendant/respondent Babulal remained in possession of the suit lands since the time of late Ganga Sahu. Ex. D/2 is the application said to have been filed by the plaintiff/appellants Ghanshyam, Bhagchand, Kashiram, Halke opposing the mutation of defendant/respondent-Babulal in the revenue record. Statement of Bhagchand, Ghanshyam and Rukmini were recorded by the Tehsildar. In Ex.D/3 Bhagchand, Ghanshyam, Rukmini have accepted that DW/1 Babulal remained in possession of the suit lands from the date of sale. PW/1 Ghanshyam in earlier statement Ex. D/3 stated that he is willing to return Rs. 900/- to the defendant/respondent. Bhagchand the other brother in Ex. D/3 also admitted that the suit lands were sold to defendant/respondent-Babulal. 5. The case of the defendant/respondent is that Late Ganga Sahu himself sold the suit lands to him for a sum of Rs. 900/- and received Rs. 100/- as earnest money. Thereafter late Ganga Sahu died, the plaintiff/appellants and late Gunguch having received Rs. 800/- executed Ex. D/l agreement to execute a registered sale deed of the suit lands in favour of defendant/respondent. Defendant/respondent remained in possession of the suit lands continuously from the date of delivery of possession by late Ganga Sahu. In Ex. D/2 application plaintiff/appellants submitted that late Ganga Sahu was ill and taken to Gwalior for treatment. Thereafter he died. Late Gunguch and plaintiff /appellants themselves executed Ex. D/l agreeing to sell the suit lands to the defendant/respondent and accepted his possession over the suit lands. Ex. D/l bears the signature of Ghanshyam, Bhagchand, Kashiram, Halkeram and thumb impression of Gunguch and Rukmini. PW/1 Ghanshyam has stated that he being the eldest son was managing the affairs of the family. Mother was also looking after the family affairs. Ex. Ex. D/l bears the signature of Ghanshyam, Bhagchand, Kashiram, Halkeram and thumb impression of Gunguch and Rukmini. PW/1 Ghanshyam has stated that he being the eldest son was managing the affairs of the family. Mother was also looking after the family affairs. Ex. D/l was executed by PW/1 Ghanshyam his mother late Rukmini Bai the step mother late Gunguch (first wife of Ganga Sahu) and other brothers Ghanshyam, Kashiram and Halkeram. PW/1 Ghanshyam, Bhagchand were adult at the time of execution of agreement Ex. D/l. There is no evidence to suggest that the suit lands were ancestral in the hands of late Ganga Sahu. Late Ganga Sahu himself sold the suit lands to the defendant/respondent and on his death the plaintiff/appellants having received Rs. 800/ confirmed the possession of the defendant/respondent and agreed to execute the registered sale deed in his favour. 6. Section 53-A of the T. P. Act protects the possession of the person who may have acted on a contract of sale but in whose favour no legally valid sale deed may have been executed or registered. In dealing with the doctrine of part performance the Apex Court in Hamzabi and others v. Syed Karimuddn and Others, 2001 (1) MPLJ (S.C.) 373 : (2001) 1 SCC 414 held as under :- Section 53-A provides for another equitable principle viz., the doctrine of part-performance, it protects the possession of persons who may have acted on a contract of sale but in whose favour no legally valid sale deed may have been executed or registered. The language of section 53-A is mandatory. The conditions necessary under this section for making out the defence of part-performance to an action in ejectment by the owner have been extricated in Nathulal v. Phoolchand as (SCC p. 123, para 9). (1) that the transferor has contracted to transfer for consideration any immovable 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; (2) that 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 continues in possession in part-performance of the contract; (3) that the transferee has done some act in furtherance of the contract; and (4) that the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of contract. 7. 7. The aforesaid conditions under section 53-A of the T. P. Act, en facts, being fulfilled by the defendant/respondent, it must be held that plaintiff/appellants are debarred from claiming possession of the suit lands. 8. Gunguch alone has not executed the agreement Ex. D/l. Appellants Ghanshyam, Bhagchand, Kashiram, Halke and late Rukmini Bai were also executants of agreement. Late Ganga Sahu himself sold the suit lands and being ill was taken to Gwalior for treatment. After sometime he died. The defendant/respondent remained in possession of the suit lands and having received the balance of Rs. 800/- from him plaintiff/appellants agreed to execute the registered sale deed in his favour. Plaintiff/appellants are bound by the aforesaid agreement Ex. D/l. 9. The courts below rightly held that defendant/respondent Babulal is entitled to protect the possession under section 53-A of TP Act. Affirming the judgment-decree passed by the courts below, appeal fails and is dismissed. Plaintiff/appellants shall bear their costs and pay the costs of the defendant/respondent. Counsel fee as per rules or certificate (whichever is less).