JUDGMENT N.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.1997 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Raipur, Camp Baloda Bazar, in Civil Appeal No. 19-A/1997 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1993 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Baloda Bazar in Civil Suit No. 84-A/1991. 2. One Beniram Sahu was the owner of land bearing Kh. No. 815 area 0.040 hectares and Kh. No. 861 area 0.129 hectares (hereinafter referred to as the suit land), situated in village Khanduwa. He died some time in the year 1981 and the plaintiffs being his legal representatives inherited the same. Plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondents/ defendants for declaration of title and possession. It is the plaintiffs' case that the suit land was given on lease by late Beniram to defendant No.1 Kartik Das for a period of two years. In the year 1978, the plaintiffs have cultivated the land. However, the same was seized in a case filed by the defendants under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C. It is further case of the plaintiffs that they were in peaceful possession of the suit land till 1983, however, the plaintiffs were dispossessed by the defendants on account of a decision in proceedings filed under Section 145 Cr. P.C. 3. By filing written statement, the defendants denied that they are in possession of the suit land as its lessee. According to them, in the year 1976, late Beniram entered into agreement of sale with them for a sale consideration of Rs. 1400/- and after receiving the same had also handed over its possession and since then they are in its possession. They are always and are still ready and willing to get the sale deed executed, and therefore, are entitled to protect their possession under the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short the Act). 4. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit. However, the first appeal preferred there-against by the defendants was allowed by the Court below dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. Hence, this second appeal. 5. 4. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit. However, the first appeal preferred there-against by the defendants was allowed by the Court below dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. Hence, this second appeal. 5. This Court, vide order dated 25.09.1998, admitted this appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- (1) Whether the lower appellate court erred in law in holding that the defendants have right to continue with the possession over the suit property in view of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act? (2) Whether the lower appellate court erred in law in holding that the defendants have become Bhumiswami under section 169 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code? 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of both the Courts below. 7. Section 168 and 169 of the MP/CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short the Code) read as under:- "168. Leases – (1) [Except in cases provided for in subsection (2), no Bhumiswami shall lease any land comprised in his holding for more than one year during any consecutive period of the three years] Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to the lease of any land:- (i) Made by Bhumiswami who is a member of a registered Cooperative Farming Society to such Society. (ii) Held by a Bhumiswami for non-agricultural purposes. Explanation – For the purposes of this section:- (a) Lease means a transfer of a right to enjoy any land, made for a certain time, expressed or implied in consideration of a price paid or promised or of money or any other thing of value to be given periodically to the transferer by the transferee who accepts the transfer on such terms. (b) Any arrangement whereby a person cultivates any land of a Bhumiswami with bullocks belonging to or procured by such person (lessee) and on condition of his giving a specified-share of the produce of the land to the Bhumiswami shall be deemed to be a lease. (c) The grant of a right merely to cut grass or to graze cattle or to grow 'Singhara' or to propagate or collect lac, pluck or collect tender leaves shall not be deemed to be a lease of the land. (2) A Bhumiswami who is:- (i) A widow. (ii) An unmarried woman. (iii) A married woman who has been deserted by her husband. (iv) A minor. (2) A Bhumiswami who is:- (i) A widow. (ii) An unmarried woman. (iii) A married woman who has been deserted by her husband. (iv) A minor. (v) A person subject to physical or mental disability due to old age or otherwise. (vi) A person detained or imprisoned under any process of law. (vii) A person in the service of Armed Forces of the Union. (viii) A public, charitable or religious institution; or o (ix) a local authority or a Co-operative Society; may lease the whole or any part of his holding. Provided that where a holding is held jointly by more than one person the provisions of this sub-section shall not be applicable unless all such persons belong to anyone or more of the classes aforesaid. Provided further that any lease made in pursuance of this sub-section shall cease to be in force after one year of the determination of the disability by death or otherwise. (3) xx xx xx (4) Where a lease is granted in pursuance of sub-section (2) the lessee shall hold the land on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between him and the Bhumiswami and may be ejected by an order of a Sub-Divisional Officer on the application of the Bhumiswami on the ground of contravention of any material terms or condition of the lease or on the lease ceasing to be in force. (5) Whereon the coming into force of this Code any land is held on lease from a Bhumiswami who belongs to anyone or more of the classes mentioned in sub-section (2), such lease shall, on the coming into force of this Code, be deemed to be a lease granted in pursuance of sub-section (2). 169. Unauthorised lease etc. – If a Bhumiswami (i) Leases out for any period any land comprised in his holding in contravention of section 168. (ii) by an arrangement which is not a lease under sub-section (1) of section 168 allows any person to cultivate any land comprised in his holding otherwise than as his hired labour and under that arrangement such person is allowed to be in possession of such land or a period exceeding two years without being evicted in accordance with section 250. The rights of an occupancy tenant shall:- (a) In the case of (1) above, thereupon accrue to the lessee in such land. The rights of an occupancy tenant shall:- (a) In the case of (1) above, thereupon accrue to the lessee in such land. (b) In the case of (ii) above, on the expiration of a period of two years from the date of possession, accrue to such -person in that land. Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a land comprised in the holding of a Bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of section 165 and which is leased out by him or in respect of which he has made an arrangement as aforesaid as the case may be." 8. This section regulates grant of lease by a Bhumiswami. The Legislature does not favour grant of lease by any Bhumiswami, leaving aside certain exceptional circumstances. Sub-section (1), therefore, says that except in the case of Bhumiswami referred in sub-section (2), no Bhumiswami shall lease any land comprised in his holding for more than one year during any consecutive period of the three years. Indisputably, late Beniram Sahu was not a Bhumiswami referred in subsection (2) of Section 168 of the Code. A plain construction of Section 168 of the Code would be that barring the exceptions in sub-section (2), the Bhumiswami is prohibited from leasing any portion of holding for more than one year during any consecutive period of three years. The duration of lease should be not more than one year. The moment it exceeds more than one year even by one day during a period of three consecutive years, the lease is prol1ibited and the consequence of prohibition results in conferral of right of occupancy to the lessee and lessor has right of compensation only. Section 190 (2-A) of the Code makes the occupancy tenant a Bhumiswami by operation of law. 9. As per the appellants' own case, the suit land was leased out by late Beniram in respondents' favour for a period of two year, i.e. more than a period of one year, and therefore, the lease was prohibited and the consequence of prohibition results in conferral of right of occupancy tenant in favour of respondents and the plaintiffs have right of compensation only, Section 190 (2A) of the Code makes the occupancy tenant a Bhumiswami by operation of law. 10. 10. In view of above, as per the plaintiffs' own case, the defendants have become Bhumiswami under Section 169 read with Section 190 (2A) of the Code and the lower appellate Court has rightly held so. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is answered in defendants' favour. 11. Coming to first substantial question of law, as per the finding of the lower appellate Court, vide Ex.D.1, late Beniram entered into agreement of sale with the defendants, who paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1400/- and also obtained its possession. 12. In order to invoke Section 53-A of the Act, there are certain conditions, which are required to be fulfilled if a transferee wants to defend or protect his possession. The necessary conditions are:- (1) There must be a contract to transfer for consideration of any immovable property. (2) The contract must be in writing, signed by the transferor, or by someone on his behalf. (3) The writing must be in such words from which the terms necessary to construe the transfer can be ascertained. (4) The transferee must in part-performance of the contract take possession of the property, or of any part thereof. (5) The transferee must have done some act in furtherance of the contract. (6) The transferee must have performed or be willing to perform his part of the contract. 13. If the conditions enumerated above are complied with, the law of limitation does not come in the way of a defendant taking plea under Section 53-A of the Act to protect his possession of the suit property even though a suit for specific performance of a contract is barred by limitation. The Supreme Court, in the case of Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi and another vs. Prahlad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (dead) by LRs. and others, (2002) 3 SCC 676 , has held in paragraph 17 thus:- "17. We are therefore, of the opinion that if the conditions enumerated above are complied with, the law of limitation does not come in the way of a defendant taking plea under Section 53-A of the Act to protect his possession of the suit property even though a suit for specific performance of a contract is barred by limitation." 14. In the instant case, vide Ex.D.1, the defendants entered into agreement of sale with late Beniram after paying entire sale consideration. In the instant case, vide Ex.D.1, the defendants entered into agreement of sale with late Beniram after paying entire sale consideration. It is on the request of Beniram that sale deed was not executed at that time. After payment of entire sale consideration the only requirement left is that execution of sale deed, for which, it has been specifically averred by the defendants in their written statement that they are ready and willing to perform their part of contract. In such a state of affairs, the defendants are also entitled to protect their possession under the provisions of Section 53-A of the Act. 15. In view of above, the lower appellate Court has also not erred in holding that the defendants have right to continue with the possession over the suit property in view of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The first substantial question of law is also answered accordingly in defendants' favour. 16. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 17. No order as to costs. 18. A decree be drawn accordingly. Appeal Dismissed.