JUDGMENT : Kuldip Singh, J.—The plaintiffs have come in appeal against judgment, decree dated 16.8.2000 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Solan camp at Nalagarh, in Civil Appeal No.4-NL/13/1999 reversing judgment, decree dated 14.12.1998 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Nalagarh in Civil Suit No.284/1 of 1991. Some of the parties have died and their legal representatives have been brought on record. In this judgment the parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants. The facts in brief are that plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that they were inducted as non-occupancy tenants over the land measuring 10 kanals 19 marlas, situate in village Ranguwal, Tehsil Nalagarh. The defendant entered into sale agreement on 21.8.1964 and agreed to sell the aforesaid land to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 2500/-. On the basis of agreement dated 21.8.1964 the defendant had sold the land measuring 5 kanals 9 marlas being his half share to the plaintiffs vide registered sale deed dated 16.2.1965. 2. The remaining half share of the land which was recorded in the name of Bhag Singh brother of defendant was agreed to be sold by defendant in favour of plaintiffs vide agreement dated 12.5.1967 after receiving balance sale consideration. The defendant while executing agreement dated 12.5.1967 confirmed earlier agreement dated 21.8.1964. The sale deed at the time of execution of second agreement was not executed in favour of plaintiffs as mutation of inheritance of Bhag Singh brother of defendant who died on 21.5.1962 was not attested in favour of defendant. 3. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that they are in possession of the suit land in part performance of the agreements dated 21.8.1964 and 12.5.1967. The plaintiffs were and are ready and willing to perform their part of contract. They are in possession of the suit land. 4. The plaintiffs in alternative pleaded that they have become owners of the suit land on coming into force Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1974 (for short Act) as they were inducted as non-occupancy tenants by the defendant in the year 1954 on the payment of galla batai. The defendant is not entitled to seek partition of the suit land as question of title is involved in the same as held by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nalagarh on 6.5.1988 and subsequently by Collector, Nalagarh on 11.10.1988. The defendant is not entitled to seek partition of the suit land as question of title is involved in the same as held by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nalagarh on 6.5.1988 and subsequently by Collector, Nalagarh on 11.10.1988. The subsequent orders of Divisional Commissioner dated 13.7.1989 and Financial Commissioner dated 20.8.1991 for partitioning the suit land in favour of defendant are wrong, illegal, null and void. 5. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. He took preliminary objections of maintainability, limitation, locus standi, lack of cause of action. On merits, the defendant has denied that plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land. The defendant admitted that he has sold his share of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs on 16.2.1965. He denied agreement dated 12.5.1967 for sale of share recorded in the name of his brother. He also denied that he received sale consideration in respect of share of his brother from plaintiffs. He denied that plaintiffs were ever inducted tenants on the suit land. The defendant has pleaded that he is co-sharer in the suit land to the extent of half share of his brother and is entitled to inherit the same. The plaintiffs filed replication and reiterated their stand while controverting the defence of the defendant. 6. The replication was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff No.1 was inducted as non-occupancy tenant over the suit land in the year 1954 as alleged. If so, its effect? OPP 2. Whether the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiffs as alleged and received the sale consideration. If so, its effect? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession by way of part performance of the contract, as alleged? OPP 4. If issue No.2 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are/were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiffs have become owners in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPP 6. Whether the orders passed by A.C. Ist Grade, Nalagarh dated 6.5.1988 and the subsequent orders passed by Collector, Nalagarh, Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner for partition of the suit land are wrong and illegal, as alleged? OPP. 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 8. OPP 6. Whether the orders passed by A.C. Ist Grade, Nalagarh dated 6.5.1988 and the subsequent orders passed by Collector, Nalagarh, Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner for partition of the suit land are wrong and illegal, as alleged? OPP. 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to sue? OPP 9. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 10. Whether the suit is bad under the provisions of order 23 rule 1 CPC. If so, its effect? OPD 11. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD 12. Whether the plaintiffs have cause of action? OPP 13. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 14. Relief. The issues No. 1, 5, 9 to 11, 13 were answered in negative, issues No.2,3,4,6, 8,12 in affirmative, issue No.7 partly in affirmative. The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit. The prayer of the plaintiffs for declaration of their title was rejected. The defendant by a decree dated 14.12.1998 of permanent prohibitory injunction was restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and to claim any right in the suit land against plaintiffs. 7. The defendant filed Civil Appeal No.4-NL/13/1999 and plaintiffs filed Civil Appeal NO.5-NL/13/1999 against judgment, decree dated 14.12.1998. The learned Addl. District Judge decided both the appeals by common judgment on 16.8.2000, Civil Appeal No.4-NL-13/1999 of defendant was accepted. The judgment, decree dated 14.12.1988 of the trial Court was set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. The Civil Appeal No.5-NL/13/1999 was dismissed. It was held that defendant to the extent of 1/2 share and plaintiffs to the extent of 1/2 share are joint owners in possession of the suit land comprised in khasra Nos. 6, 143, kita 2 measuring 10 kanals 19 marlas, situate in village Ranguwal. 8. The plaintiffs have come in second appeal against judgment, decree dated 16.8.2000 which has been admitted on following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the learned lower appellate Court is right in not taking into consideration the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act? 2. 8. The plaintiffs have come in second appeal against judgment, decree dated 16.8.2000 which has been admitted on following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the learned lower appellate Court is right in not taking into consideration the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court is the result of complete misreading, misinterpretation as well as mis appreciation of Exhibit PW1/A, agreement dated 12.5.1967 as well as sale deed Ext. PW4/A dated 16th February, 1965 as well as Ext. PW7/A, sale agreement dated 21.8.1964? 3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is the result of complete misreading, misinterpretation as well as mis appreciation of the provisions of Section 114 and 111(g) (sic 114(g) ) of the Evidence Act? 4. Whether the learned lower appellate Court is right in holding that the defendant could not have entered into the agreement with respect to the share of his brother Bhag Singh vide agreement Ext. PW7/A and PW1/A in the year 1964 and 1967 especially when said Bhag Singh died on 21.5.1962 and respondent-defendant was the only legal heir to succeed to his estate? 5. Whether the learned lower appellate Court is right in dismissing the suit of the appellants without setting aside the categorical findings recorded by the trial Court qua protection of possession of the appellants u/s 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act? 6. Whether the learned lower appellate Court is right in not giving any reasons for declining the claim of the appellants qua becoming owner of the suit property by operation of the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act or in the alternative by way of adverse possession? 9. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants has submitted that learned Ist Appellate Court has erred in reversing the well reasoned judgment of learned trial Court. The Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 (for short Act) and agreements, Ex.PW-7/A, Ex.PW1/A have been misconstrued, misinterpreted. The Sections 114 and 114(g) of the Evidence Act have not been properly appreciated. The oral and documentary evidence have been misconstrued, misinterpreted. The submission has been made for decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 10. The learned counsel for the defendant has supported the impugned judgment, decree. The Sections 114 and 114(g) of the Evidence Act have not been properly appreciated. The oral and documentary evidence have been misconstrued, misinterpreted. The submission has been made for decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 10. The learned counsel for the defendant has supported the impugned judgment, decree. It has been submitted that plaintiffs have taken destructive pleas of agreement, Section 53A of the Act, non-occupancy tenancy and adverse possession. The plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish their case u/s 53 A of the Act. The plaintiffs have not established their case of ready and willingness. The agreement on the basis of which suit has been filed is dated 12.5.1967. The suit has been filed on 9.10.1991. There is no specific challenge to orders of partition, ordered by the Revenue Officers. The submission has been made for dismissal of the appeal. 11. The substantial question of law No.6 is taken up first for consideration. The issue No.1 is whether plaintiff No.1 was inducted as non-occupancy tenant over the suit land in the year 1954. The learned trial Court under issue No.1 has held that parties have agreed that the Court has no jurisdiction to determine this issue and decided the issue No.1 against plaintiffs. The plaintiffs before the learned trial Court agreed that the question of tenancy could not be gone into in the suit filed by them. Therefore, in these circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the question of inductions of plaintiffs as tenants on the suit land and later on they have become owners after coming into force of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1974 cannot be considered, hence substantial question of law No.6 is decided against the plaintiffs. 12. The Substantial questions of law No.1 to 5 are interconnected, therefore all are taken up for consideration collectively. Ex.PW-7/A is the agreement dated 21.8.1964, Ex.PW4/A is the sale deed dated 16.2.1965 and Ex.PW-1/A is agreement dated 12.5.1967. The plaintiffs have filed suit on the basis of agreement Ex.PW-1/A. The case of the plaintiffs is that Bhag Singh and Prem Singh defendant were brothers and co-owners. The defendant entered into an agreement dated 21.8.1964 Ex.PW-7/A for selling the land measuring 10 kanals 19 marlas to the plaintiffs for Rs. 2500/-. The plaintiffs have filed suit on the basis of agreement Ex.PW-1/A. The case of the plaintiffs is that Bhag Singh and Prem Singh defendant were brothers and co-owners. The defendant entered into an agreement dated 21.8.1964 Ex.PW-7/A for selling the land measuring 10 kanals 19 marlas to the plaintiffs for Rs. 2500/-. The sale deed on the basis of agreement dated 21.8.1964 could not be executed as Bhag Singh brother of Prem Singh defendant even though died on 21.5.1962 but mutation of his succession was not attested, therefore, defendant by way of sale deed dated 16.2.1965 Ex.PW-4/A sold his share in favour of plaintiffs. The defendant executed agreement Ex.PW-1/A dated 12.5.1967 for selling to plaintiffs the share which had come to him from his brother Bhag Singh. The mutation No.348 Ex.P-6(Ex.D-1) of succession of Bhag Singh was attested in favour of defendant on 22.8.1967. The plaintiffs had paid entire sale consideration to the defendant, they were ready and willing to perform their part of contract but defendant did not execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs on the basis of agreement dated 12.5.1967. 13. The defendant had filed the partition case. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nalagarh on 6.5.1988 Ex.P-8 held that there was a question of title and declined to partition the suit land. The order dated 6.5.1988 was upheld by Collector, Nalagarh on 11.10.1988 in Ex.P-9. However, Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 13.7.1989 recommended that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade be directed to decide the partition case as the title of the defendant was clear. The recommendation dated.13.7.1989 of the Divisional Commissioner was accepted by Financial Commissioner on 20.8.1991 vide Ex.D-3. Thereafter plaintiffs filed the suit on 9.10.1991. 14. PW-1 Arvind Chand is the son of Kamal Nain, petition writer. He has stated that his father had died in the year 1992. He has stated that agreement Ex.PW-1/A dated 12.5.1967 is written by his father. PW-2 Brahama Nand has stated that he and Diwan Chand signed the agreement executed by Prem Singh in favour of Nathu Ram in the year 1967. In cross-examination he has stated Ex.PW-1/A was written in Court premises. PW-3 Diwan Chand has stated that the parties had signed agreement Ex.PW-1/A in his presence and in presence of Brahama Nand. PW-4 Jagdish Chand, Registration Clerk has proved copy of sale deed Ex.PW-4/A dated 16.2.1965 executed by Prem Singh in favour of Nathu Ram. In cross-examination he has stated Ex.PW-1/A was written in Court premises. PW-3 Diwan Chand has stated that the parties had signed agreement Ex.PW-1/A in his presence and in presence of Brahama Nand. PW-4 Jagdish Chand, Registration Clerk has proved copy of sale deed Ex.PW-4/A dated 16.2.1965 executed by Prem Singh in favour of Nathu Ram. PW-5 Partap Singh has stated that Prem Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of Nathu Ram. He and other witness Banta Nambardar signed the sale deed. The copy of sale deed is Ex.PW-4/A. PW-1 was again examined as PW-6 and has identified the signatures of his father Kamal Nain, petition writer on sale deed, a copy Ex.PW-4/A. 15. PW-7 Parkash Chand Saini is retired Sessions Judge. He has stated that in the year 1964 he was Sub Judge at Delhi. He knew Nathu Ram and Prem Singh, who came to him. Nathu Ram told that he had been cultivating some land of Prem Singh and he wanted to purchase that land. He told them to come next day. They came on the next day, the petition writer scribed the agreement who read over the agreement to both the parties and the parties signed, thumb marked, Amrao Singh signed in his presence as well as in presence of parties. He has seen the original agreement which bears his signatures and agreement is Ex.PW-7/A. 16. DW-1 Prem Singh has stated that disputed land is 5 kanals 10 marlas and he is owner of said land. He had given an application for partitioning of the said land, which was allowed. The land has come to him as successor of his brother Bhag Singh. He had sold his land to plaintiffs. He had never inducted plaintiffs as tenants over the suit land. He had not executed an agreement with plaintiffs of the suit land. The plaintiffs had earlier filed suit which was withdrawn. In cross-examination, he has stated that both brothers were owners of land measuring 10 kanals 19 marlas, his brother died issueless and was unmarried. He is the only heir of his brother. He has stated that he had executed sale deed dated 16.2.1965 Ex.PW4/A in favour of plaintiffs. He denied his signature on agreement Ex.PW-1/A. He has stated that he has no enmity with Brahama Nand, Diwan Chand and Kamal Nain. He denied that he had executed an agreement dated 21.8.1964. He is the only heir of his brother. He has stated that he had executed sale deed dated 16.2.1965 Ex.PW4/A in favour of plaintiffs. He denied his signature on agreement Ex.PW-1/A. He has stated that he has no enmity with Brahama Nand, Diwan Chand and Kamal Nain. He denied that he had executed an agreement dated 21.8.1964. He has shown his ignorance that Parkash Chand Saini is a witness of agreement executed at Delhi. He has no enmity with Parkash Chand Saini and Umarao Singh. 17. The defendant has admitted execution of sale deed dated 16.2.1965 Ex.PW-4/A. PW-7 Parskah Chand Saini has proved agreement dated 21.8.1964 Ex.PW-7/A. The other witness of Ex.PW7/A is Umarao Singh. The defendant has stated that he has no enmity with Umarao Singh and Parkash Chand Saini. In the sale deed dated 16.2.1965 Ex.PW-4/A there is reference of agreement dated 21.8.1964. There is nothing on record why deposition of PW-7 Parkash Singh Saini regarding execution of agreement dated 21.8.1964 Ex.PW-7/A should not be believed. Thus, execution of agreement Ex.PW-7/A dated 21.8.1964 has been proved. 18. The defendant has admitted that he and his brother Bhag Singh were owners of land measuring 10 kanals 19 marlas. He had already sold his share in that land. The defendant has also stated that share of his brother Bhag Singh came to him being the only heir of his brother. The mutation of succession of Bhag Singh in favour of defendant Ex.P-6(Ex.D1) was attested on 22.8.1967. At the time of sale deed Ex.PW-4/A the mutation of succession of Bhag Singh was not attested in favour of defendant, therefore, defendant only sold his share in favour of plaintiffs vide sale deed Ex.PW-4/A dated 16.2.1965. 19. The execution of agreement Ex.PW-1/A has been denied by defendant but the execution of the agreement Ex.PW-1/A has been proved by PW-2 Brahma Nand, PW-3 Diwan Chand. The defendant in his statement has stated that he has no enmity with Kamal Nain scribe, Brahma Nand and Diwan Chand, witnesses of Ex.PW-1/A, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW-2 and PW-3 regarding the execution of agreement Ex.PW-1/A. Thus, it has been proved that defendant had executed agreement Ex.PW-1/A dated 12.5.1967 in favour of plaintiffs. 20. 20. It has been contended on behalf of the defendant that plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove readiness and willingness on their part so as to take protection of Section 53A of the Act. It has been submitted that Section 53A of the Act is available in defence and plaintiffs cannot take benefit of Section 53A of the Act. The learned counsel for the defendant has also submitted that adverse inference is to be drawn against plaintiffs as PW-8 Surjan Singh appeared in the witness box as Special Power of Attorney and no other plaintiff appeared in support of the case. 21. The Section 53A of the Act at the relevant time was as follows:- 53A Part performance-Where any person contracts 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, 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, continues 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 therefore 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. 22. Ex.P-3 is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1963-64 showing Bhag Singh and Prem Singh owners and Nathu Ram in possession as tenant on khasra Nos. 6, 143, total measuring 10 kanals 19 marals. In Ex.P-4 copy of jamabandi for the year 1959-60 same position has been shown. 22. Ex.P-3 is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1963-64 showing Bhag Singh and Prem Singh owners and Nathu Ram in possession as tenant on khasra Nos. 6, 143, total measuring 10 kanals 19 marals. In Ex.P-4 copy of jamabandi for the year 1959-60 same position has been shown. In jamabandi Ex.P-2 for the year 1969-70 Prem Singh to the extent of half share has been shown in possession of land comprised in khasra Nos.6, 143, measuring 10 kanals 19 Marlas. The change in the column of possession in Ex.P-2 in favour of Prem Singh has not been shown on the basis of some lawful order. In these circumstances, no presumption of truth is attached to jamabandi for the year 1969-70 Ex.P-2 showing Prem Singh in possession of half share of land comprised in khasra Nos.6, 143, total measuring 10 kanals 19 marlas. Nathu Ram continued to be in possession of land comprised in khasra Nos.6, 143, total measuring 10 kanals 19 marlas. 23. It has come on record that earlier Nathu Ram filed suit against Prem Singh which was dismissed as withdrawn vide Ex.P7(Ex.D-2) dated 17.11.1987 as the partition proceedings of the suit land were going on. In the partition case, Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nalagarh on 6.5.1988 in Ex.P-8 held that there is a question of title. The order dated 6.5.1988 was upheld by Collector, Nalagarh on 11.10.1988 in Ex.P-9. However, the Divisional Commissioner on 13.5.1989 has recommended for acceptance of revision. The Financial Commissioner on 20.8.1991 vide Ex.D-3 set aside the order dated 6.5.1988 of Assistant Collector Ist Grade and order dated 11.10.1988 of Collector and held that title of the defendant was clear and directed the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to proceed with the partition. In these circumstances, the suit again came to be filed by plaintiffs. 24. In the plaint plaintiffs have pleaded that the orders of the Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner are illegal and void. The plaintiffs had paid the entire sale consideration. In these circumstances, the suit again came to be filed by plaintiffs. 24. In the plaint plaintiffs have pleaded that the orders of the Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner are illegal and void. The plaintiffs had paid the entire sale consideration. It has been stated by PW-8 Surjan Singh that they remained ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement Ex.PW-1/A but defendant did not execute the sale deed earlier on the pretext that mutation of succession of Bhag Singh has not been attested in favour of Prem Singh which has been attested on 22.8.1967 but later on again did not execute the sale deed on the basis of agreement Ex.PW-1/A on one pretext or the other. The plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. They had paid the entire sale consideration. 25. The Supreme Court in D.S. Parvathamma Vs. A. Srinivasan, (2003) 4 SCC 705 , has held as follows:- The essential features of the equitable doctrine of part-performance as statutorily modified and incorporated in Section 53-A abovesaid, to the extent relevant for the purposes of this case, are : (i) 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 and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, (ii) that the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, and (iii) that the plea of part-performance is not available to be raised against a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part-performance thereof. 26. In FGP Ltd. Vs. 26. In FGP Ltd. Vs. Saleh Hooseini Doctor and Another, (2009) 10 SCC 223 , the Supreme Court has held that in gradients of Section 53 A are as follows:- Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act has certain ingredients and, in our judgment, those are:- (1) a contract to transfer immovable property; (2) the transfer should be for consideration; (3) the contract must be in writing; (4) it should be signed by or on behalf of the transferor; (5) the terms of the contract can be ascertained with reasonable certainty from the writing; (6) the transferee takes possession of the whole or part of the property or if already in possession continues in possession; (7) such taking of or continuance in possession should be in part performance of the contract; (8) the transferee should do some act in furtherance of the contract; and (9) he should have performed, or be willing to perform, his part of the contract. 27. The Supreme Court in Nanjegowda and Another Vs. Gangamma and Others, AIR 2011 SC 3774 has noticed S.53A of the Act and held as follows: From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that a party can take shelter behind this provision only when the following conditions are fulfilled. They are: (i) The contract should have been in writing signed by or on behalf of the transferor; (ii) The transferee should have got possession of the immovable property covered by the contract; (iii) The transferee should have done some act in furtherance of the contract; and (iv) The transferee has either performed his part of the contract or is willing to perform his part of the contract. A party can take advantage of this provision only when it satisfies all the conditions aforesaid. All the postulates are sine qua non and a party cannot derive benefit by fulfilling one or more conditions. 28. The Supreme Court in Sardar Govindrao Mahadik and Another Vs. Devi Sahai and Others, (1982) 1 SCC 237 has held as follows:-. Section 53-A requires that the person claiming the benefit of part performance must always be shown to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. And if it is shown. that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract he will not qualify for the protection of the doctrine of part performance. 29. And if it is shown. that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract he will not qualify for the protection of the doctrine of part performance. 29. The Supreme Court in Patel Natwarlal Rupji Vs. Shri Kondh Group Kheti Vishayak and another, (1996) 7 SCC 690 has held as follows:- Section 53-A of the Act provides that where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf which constitutes 'transfer', and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property of the transferor, the transferee being already in possession, continues 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, 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. The Supreme Court continued It would thus be clear that Section 53-A confers no title on the transferee but imposes a statutory bar on the transferor to seek possession of the immovable property from the transferee. Equally, Section 53-A does not confer any title on the defendant in possession nor can he maintain a suit on title. 30. It has been proved that defendant executed initially agreement dated 21.8.1964 Ex.PW-7/A then sale deed dated 16.2.1965 Ex.PW-4/A and agreement dated 12.5.1967 Ex.PW-1/A. The plaintiffs had paid entire amount of sale consideration, except execution of sale deed by defendant on the basis of agreement Ex.PW-1/A nothing else was to be done by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were already in possession of the suit land, they continued in possession thereof under the agreement Ex.PW-1/A. It has been pleaded in the plaint that plaintiffs were and are ready and willing to perform their part of contract. PW-8 Surjan Singh while in the witness box has reiterated readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract. He has stated that balance sale consideration was also paid. PW-8 Surjan Singh while in the witness box has reiterated readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract. He has stated that balance sale consideration was also paid. The defendant has denied the agreement Ex.PW-1/A and has taken false plea of denial of agreement Ex.PW-1/A which has been proved by plaintiffs. 31. In Sheth Maneklal Mansukhbhai Vs. Hormusji Jamshedji Ginwalla and Sons, AIR 1950 SC 1 , the Supreme Court has held that a formal lease is not necessary to attract the application of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. All that is required is that an agreement in writing signed by the transferor can be gathered from the evidence. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the defendant that plea of part performance is not available to the plaintiffs as plaintiffs have not shown that they made an attempt to get the sale deed prepared after purchasing stamps. The plaintiffs have already paid the entire sale consideration under the agreement; nothing else was to be done by them. The sale deed could be executed only with the co-operation of the defendant who took false plea that he never entered into an agreement Ex.PW-1/A. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to take protection u/s 53A to protect their possession. 32. It has been contended by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that learned Addl. District Judge has erred in drawing adverse inference against plaintiffs for not examining any plaintiff. The learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that learned Addl. District Judge has rightly drawn adverse inference against plaintiffs for not examining any plaintiff. He has relied Man Kaur (dead) by LRS. Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512 . In that case the Supreme Court has held that a third party who has no personal knowledge cannot give evidence about such readiness and willingness, even if he is an attorney-holder of the person concerned. The Supreme Court in para 18 has summarized the position as to who should give evidence in regard to matters involving personal knowledge. 33. In that case the Supreme Court has held that a third party who has no personal knowledge cannot give evidence about such readiness and willingness, even if he is an attorney-holder of the person concerned. The Supreme Court in para 18 has summarized the position as to who should give evidence in regard to matters involving personal knowledge. 33. In para 18(g) in Man Kaur (supra) it has been held that where the law requires or contemplated the plaintiff or other party to a proceeding, to establish or prove something with reference to his "state of mind" or "conduct", normally the person concerned alone has to give evidence and not an attorney-holder, a purchaser seeking specific performance who has to show his "readiness and willingness" fall under this category. There is however a recognized exception to this requirement. Where all the affairs of a party are completely managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney, who may happen to be a close family member, it may be possible to accept the evidence of such attorney even with reference to bonafides or readiness and willingness. Examples of such attorney-holders are a husband/wife exclusively managing the affairs of his/her spouse, a son/daughter exclusively managing the affairs of an old and infirm parent, a father/mother exclusively managing the affairs of a son/daughter living abroad. 34. Ex.PW-8/A is the registered Special Power of Attorney of Nathu Ram executed in favour of Surjan Singh. In Ex.PW-8/A Nathu Ram has given his age 95 years. It has been stated that Nathu Ram was old and not in a position to attend the Court. The attorney has been authorized to make statement on oath. PW-8 Surjan Singh made his statement in the trial Court as special power of attorney holder of Nathu Ram plaintiff on 21.2.1997. PW-8 has stated that plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of contract but defendant put off the matter on one pretext or other, his father was sick and was not in a position to move, his only one lung was working. He could not see. Nathu Ram died 26.7.1997. PW-8 Surjan Singh being the son of plaintiff Nathu Ram is not a stranger. He falls in the exception as held in Man Kaur (supra) by the Supreme Court. The position of PW-8 after the death of Nathu Ram is different. In these circumstances, learned Addl. He could not see. Nathu Ram died 26.7.1997. PW-8 Surjan Singh being the son of plaintiff Nathu Ram is not a stranger. He falls in the exception as held in Man Kaur (supra) by the Supreme Court. The position of PW-8 after the death of Nathu Ram is different. In these circumstances, learned Addl. District Judge has erred in drawing adverse inference for not examining the plaintiffs in the suit. 35. The learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that protection of Section 53A is available only in defence. He has relied Raghavendra Narain Shah Vs. Moti Lal Gupta and Others, AIR 1982 All 304 . In Tshering Wongdi Bhutia v. Sonam Pintso and others AIR 1981 ( Sikkim) 1, it has been held as follows:- The expressions "sword" and the "shield" have been very often used in respect of the rights of a proposed transferee claiming part-performance of the contract to transfer and it has too often been said that he can use his rights only as "shield" and not as "sword". And from this an impression has grown that such a person can figure in curial arena only as a defendant or an opposite party to defend or protect his rights, but not as a plaintiff or a petitioner to enforce his rights. The impression, in my view, is erroneous and I am in full and respectful agreement with the view of Subba Rao,C.J. (as his Lordship then was) in the Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Yenugu Achayya and Another Vs. Ernaki Venkata Subba Rao and Others and followed by his Lordship, sitting singly, in Akram Men Vs. Secunderabad Municipal Corporation, AIR 1957 AP 859 36. In Dharmaji alias Baban Bajirao Shinde Vs. Jagannath Shankar Jadhav since deceased by his heirs Bhanudas Jagannath Jadhav etc., AIR 1994 Bom 254 , it has been held that the plaintiff could file a suit to protect his possession u/s 53A and restrain the defendants who were strangers from disturbing his lawful possession. 37. In Laxman Pandu Khadke Vs. Pandharinath Purushottam Rane, AIR 1988 Bom 296 , it has been held that a person entering into possession of suit property lawfully on the basis of agreement of sale can maintain suit for injunction simpliciter without adding prayer for specific performance of agreement. 38. 37. In Laxman Pandu Khadke Vs. Pandharinath Purushottam Rane, AIR 1988 Bom 296 , it has been held that a person entering into possession of suit property lawfully on the basis of agreement of sale can maintain suit for injunction simpliciter without adding prayer for specific performance of agreement. 38. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nalagarh on 6.5.1988, Collector, Nalagarh on 11.10.1988 held that there is question of title in the partition case filed by defendant. The Divisional Commissioner on 13.7.1989 and Financial Commissioner on 20.8.1991 held that there is no question of title. It has been pleaded in the plaint that the orders of the Revenue Officers are illegal, null and void and defendant is not entitled to partition. The plaintiffs are claiming protection u/s 53A by pleading that defendant has no right to claim partition of the suit land. The learned Addl. District Judge has misconstrued, misinterpreted the Ex.PW-1/A, Ex.PW-4/A, Ex.PW7/A and Section 53A of the Act. The learned Addl. District Judge has wrongly drawn adverse inference against plaintiffs for not examining any plaintiffs and has erred in reversing well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court. The plaintiffs have proved ingredients of S. 53A of the Act and therefore, they are entitled to protection to S. 53A of the Act. The learned trial Court has rightly given the protection of S. 53A of the Act to the plaintiffs which was wrongly declined by learned Addl. District Judge. The substantial questions of law No.1 to 5 are decided in favour of the appellants, In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment, decree are set aside. The judgment, decree of the trial Court are restored with no order as to costs.