Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 302 (TRI)

Anukul Chandra Roy v. Bhabani Bardhan (Dutta)

2014-08-01

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:-- 1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2009, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Agartala, West Tripura, in Title Appeal No. 51 of 2005, where-under the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2003, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 2, Agartala, West Tripura, in Title Suit No. 34 of 2001 was affirmed. 2. By order dated 11.11.2009, the second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:- “A. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is perverse due to non-consideration of the judgment and decree dated 08/08/07 passed by Ld. Additional District Judge, West Tripura in TA 48/2004 on the same subject matter between the same parties as also the fact of absence of challenge to the decree of dismissal of counter-claim in T.S. 21/02? B. Whether Ld. First Appellate Court below had jurisdiction to pass the impugned judgment and decree with findings inconsistent with and contrary to the unchallenged findings and decision in an earlier appeal i.e. F.A. No. 31 of 1992 passed by the Ld. First Appellate Court and High Court on the same subject matter between the same parties? C. Whether two inconsistent and contradictory judgments and decrees by the same court in respect of the same matter between the same parties can prevail and if not whether the earlier one or the later one should prevail? D. Whether the issue No. 2 framed in the suit namely, “whether the father of the plaintiff executed sale deed and handed over possession to the Defendants after receipt of Rs. 25,000”/- was res-judicata in as much as the said issue was finally decided by the Hon’ble High Court by an order dated 04/6/99 passed in FA No. 31/92 affirming the order dated 16/03/92 passed by Ld. Sub-Ordinate Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in TS 133/97 and the order dated 09/06/87 passed by the District Registrar, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. 01/DR/83?” E. Any other substantial questions of law which may be required for effective decision of the present appeal. 3. Heard learned Sr. counsel Mr. A.K. Bhowmik assisted by learned counsel Mr. S. Saha for the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter mentioned as plaintiff) and learned Sr. counsel Mr. S.M. Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel Ms. 3. Heard learned Sr. counsel Mr. A.K. Bhowmik assisted by learned counsel Mr. S. Saha for the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter mentioned as plaintiff) and learned Sr. counsel Mr. S.M. Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel Ms. B. Chakraborty for the defendant-respondents (hereinafter mentioned as defendants). 4. The appellant as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 34 of 2001 seeking declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of the possession of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint and also prayed for a decree of mesne profit till recovery of khas possession. 5. The defendants contested the case by filing written statement and in addition thereto, defendant No. 1 set up a counter claim and the plaintiff filed written statement in the counter claim which was registered as T.S. 21/2002 arising out of T.S. 34 of 2001. 6. Both the suit i.e. T.S. 34 of 2001 and the counter claim T.S. 21 of 2002 were tried together and single set of evidence was recorded in connection with the case and counter case. 7. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is that his father Sakhi Charan Roy was the original owner of the suit land with building thereon and his father inducted Atish Chandra Bardhan, the predecessor of the defendants, as a tenant in the suit land with building in the year 1979 at an annual rent of `1,200/-. Sakhi Charan, father of the plaintiff executed a sale deed in favour of Atish Chandra Bardhan on 03.08.1982 (Deed written on 06.05.1982) and the deed was presented for registration in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Khowai wherein the suit land was transferred to Said Atish Chandra Bardhan, predecessor of the defendants for a consideration of ` 25000/-. But registration was refused by the Sub-Registrar, Khowai and therefore, Atish Chandra Bardhan preferred Registration Appeal No. 01/DR/83 under Section 73 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 before the District Registrar and the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, Atish Chandra Bardhan filed Title Suit No. 133 of 1987 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Agartala, West Tripura, under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act and that Title Suit was dismissed on 16.03.1992. Against the dismissal of Title Appeal Atish Chandra Bardhan preferred first appeal No. 31 of 1992 in the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench. Atish Chandra Bardhan died on 23.03.1997 and thereafter the first appeal was dismissed as abated. Against the dismissal of Title Appeal Atish Chandra Bardhan preferred first appeal No. 31 of 1992 in the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench. Atish Chandra Bardhan died on 23.03.1997 and thereafter the first appeal was dismissed as abated. It is the case of the plaintiff that Atish Chandra was a tenant under Sakhi Charan on yearly basis and from the month of April, 1983 Atish Chandra stopped payment of the rent as a tenant and continued in possession. The plaintiff issued notice to the defendants to vacate the suit land but the defendants did not vacate the suit land and hence, the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of right, title, and interest and for recovery of possession with mesne profit. 8. Defendant No. 1 contested the case by filing separate written statement and defendant Nos. 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 also filed a joint written statement. Defendant No. 1 also filed a counter claim. Defendants contended that Atish Chandra Bardhan, the predecessor of the defendants was inducted as a tenant in the year 1979 at a monthly rent of` 200/- and not ` 1200/- in a year. Sakhi Charan made proposal for sale of the suit land and the proposal was accepted by Atish Chandra and accordingly Atish Chandra paid consideration money of ` 25,000/- which was accepted by Sakhi Charan and a sale deed was prepared on 06.05.1982 and it was executed by Sakhi Charan on 03.08.1982 and thereafter the deed was presented for registration but registration was refused since it was undervalued as Sakhi Charan stated that he actually received ` 32,500/- from Atish Chandra and in the deed mentioned ` 25,000/-. It is stated that Sakhi Charan handed over physical possession of the suit land on the date of execution of the sale deed and thereafter payment of rent also was stopped since after handing over of possession, taking the consideration money for the suit land, Sakhi Charan did not claim the rent. It is contended by the defendants that T.S. 133 of 1987 was dismissed on the ground of limitation and the first appeal was also dismissed on technical ground. It is contended by the defendants that T.S. 133 of 1987 was dismissed on the ground of limitation and the first appeal was also dismissed on technical ground. The defendant No. 1 claimed title to the suit land by adverse possession and the other defendants further stated that they have instituted a case for specific performance of contract which has been registered as T.S. 17 of 2002 during pendency of the Title Suit No. 31 of 2001 and the counter case T.S. 21 of 2002. They also contended that the plaintiff did not execute the registered sale deed and also did not refund the amount paid by Atish Chandra towards consideration of the suit land. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit of plaintiff and in the counter claim prayed for declaration of the right, title and interest of the defendants by way of adverse possession. 9. The trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties in T.S. 34 of 2001 framed 4(four) issues namely; i. Whether suit is maintainable in the present form? ii. Whether the father of the plaintiff executed sale deed and handed over possession to the defendants after receipt of Rs. 25,000/-? iii. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit property? iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get declaration of title & recovery of the suit land from the defendants? 9.1 Similarly, in the counter claim i.e. T.S. 21 of 2002 the trial Court formulated 4(four) issues namely; i. Whether the counter claim for declaration and confirmation of possession is maintainable? ii. Whether the counter-claimant paid Rs. 25,000/- to Sakhi Charan Roy who executed sale deed and handed over possession in favour of the counter claimants? iii. Whether the counter-claimant illegally possessing the suit property hostile to all legal heirs of Sakhi Charan Roy for more than 12 years and thereby acquired right, title and interest over it? iv. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to get decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and any other relief? 10. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and also examined 5 (five) more witnesses namely P.W. 2 Matilal Saha, P.W. 3 Haralal Das, P.W. 4 Abinash Ch. Roy, P.W. 5 Usha Rani Roy and P.W. 6 Rabindranath Chowdhury. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to get decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and any other relief? 10. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and also examined 5 (five) more witnesses namely P.W. 2 Matilal Saha, P.W. 3 Haralal Das, P.W. 4 Abinash Ch. Roy, P.W. 5 Usha Rani Roy and P.W. 6 Rabindranath Chowdhury. Plaintiff also proved some documents vide Exhibit-1 series namely registered will dated 11.09.1994 by which Sakhi Charan given property in favour of the plaintiff; Khatian in favour of Sakhi Charan and demand notice etc. 11. Defendant No. 1 examined herself as D.W. 1 and no documentary evidence adduced. 12. Trial Court considering the pleadings and evidence decided Issue Nos. I and II of both the case and counter case in affirmative in favour of the plaintiff and the counter claimant respectively but decided issue Nos. III and IV against the plaintiff as well as the counter claimant and hence dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as well as the counter claim. 13. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No. 51 of 2005 challenging the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit. Defendants did not prefer any appeal. The appeal has been dismissed by impugned judgment dated 28.03.2009 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, and hence, this second appeal. 14. Though several substantial questions of law were formulated, learned counsel of both side concentrated their argument mainly on the point of application of the doctrine of part performance in the given facts and circumstances of the case. No argument advanced on other substantial questions of law. 15. It is an admitted position that Sakhi Charan Roy, father of the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land with a building thereon and he inducted Atish Chandra Bardhan, father of the defendant-respondents as the tenant in the year 1979 at a monthly rate and/or annual rate of rent. No argument advanced on other substantial questions of law. 15. It is an admitted position that Sakhi Charan Roy, father of the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land with a building thereon and he inducted Atish Chandra Bardhan, father of the defendant-respondents as the tenant in the year 1979 at a monthly rate and/or annual rate of rent. It is also an admitted position that Sakhi Charan executed a sale deed of the suit land in favour of Atish Chandra Bardhan on 03.08.1982 and the deed was presented in the Office of the Sub-Registrar for registration but the registration was refused and thereafter Atish Chandra Bardhan preferred registration appeal No. 01/DR/83 under Section 73 of the Registration Act and that appeal was dismissed against which Atish Chandra filed Title Suit No. 133/87 under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Agartala, West Tripura and the Title Suit was dismissed on 16.03.1992. Atish Chandra preferred First Appeal No. 31/92 in the High court and during pendency of appeal on 23.03.1997 Atish Chandra died and thereafter the appeal was dismissed as abated. 16. The trial Court and the appellate Court arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that on 03.08.1982 Sakhi Charan executed the sale deed in favour of Atish Chandra and handed over physical possession of the suit land with building to Atish Chandra and thereafter Sakhi Charan stopped collection of rent from Atish Chandra and Atish Chandra also did not make payment of rent of the suit land since he purchased the suit land on payment of consideration money. The trial Court has held that Atish Chandra actually paid ` 32,500/- as consideration of the suit land which was accepted by Sakhi Charan and that fact has been clearly revealed in the evidence of P.W. 1 i.e. plaintiff in his cross examination and I find no perversity in the finding. 17. It is a fact that Atish Chandra Bardhan and thereafter the defendants lost the cases instituted by them and thereafter plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of possession. The trial Court has held that plaintiff cannot get recovery of possession because of operation of the doctrine of part performance as prescribed in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial Court has held that plaintiff cannot get recovery of possession because of operation of the doctrine of part performance as prescribed in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court has held that in the given facts of the case where it is an admitted position that father of the plaintiff executed sale deed on receipt of the consideration money from Atish Chandra, father of the defendants and handed over possession of the suit land to Atish Chandra and stopped collection of rent of the suit land, the plaintiff cannot recover possession of the suit land because the possession of the defendants is protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. 18. The appellate Court while affirming the judgment of the trial Court, meticulously discussed the evidence on record and in Para 9 and 10 of his finding observed thus:- “9. The learned trial court decided the Issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and also decided the Issue No. 2 stating that the father of the plaintiff-appellant executed the sale deed handed over the possession of the suit land to the father of the respondent defendants on receipt of the consideration money of Rs. 32,500/- (Rupees thirty-two thousand five hundred) and handed over the possession of the possession of the suit land and the Issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellant stating that title of the property was not transferred as because the value of the property is more that Rs. 100/- and without registration title cannot be transferred from the owner to the vendor. But giving the effect under Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act decided that the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to any relief. 10. From the recital of the parties in their respective pleadings and also the evidence of the PWs. Mainly in the cross-examination portion I find that it is an admitted position that the suit land sold out by the father of the plaintiff-appellant to the father of the defendant-respondents and received consideration money of Rs. 32,500/- and also handed over the possession of the suit land to the father of the defendant-respondents when he was a tenant in the suit premises. The state of condition of the immovable properties worth of more than Rs. 32,500/- and also handed over the possession of the suit land to the father of the defendant-respondents when he was a tenant in the suit premises. The state of condition of the immovable properties worth of more than Rs. 100/- should be transferred by way of registered instrument the in the present case instrument was executed by the father of the plaintiff-appellant in favour of the father of the defendant-respondents and presented for registration before the registering authority but due to technical ground registration was not done but received the consideration money and the predecessor is in possession of the suit land. The Section 53-A of the T.P. Act is an enabling provision in favour of the predecessor. The said provision is quoted as follows:- “Section 53A. Part performance.--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, 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 therefor 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.” From the side of the plaintiff-appellant a case law reported in : (2003) 4 SCC 705 in between D.S. Parvathamma vrs. A. Srinivasan. From the side of the defendant-respondents also cited the case law reported in : AIR 1970 Supreme Court 546 in between Nathulal vrs. Phoolchand. A. Srinivasan. From the side of the defendant-respondents also cited the case law reported in : AIR 1970 Supreme Court 546 in between Nathulal vrs. Phoolchand. Their lordship in the Apex Court in the case of Nathulal at para 9 prescribed the condition necessary for making out of the defence of part performance to an action in ejectment by the owner are: (1) that the transferor has contracted 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; (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 the contract. If these conditions are fulfilled 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 is debarred from enforcing against the transferee 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.” Their lordship in the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vrs. Meena Variyal and others reported in : AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1609 at para 7 held as follows:- “7. ......... It appears to us that mere going by some decision or other, without appreciating the facts in a given case, in the light of the law, if any, declared by this court, does not lead court or Tribunal to a correct conclusion in the normal course”. 19. Learned Sr. counsel Mr. Bhowmik argued that the title of the suit land has not been transferred since the registration of the deed was refused and that refusal of the registration stands good. Defendants lost in all fronts to get the sale deed registered. 19. Learned Sr. counsel Mr. Bhowmik argued that the title of the suit land has not been transferred since the registration of the deed was refused and that refusal of the registration stands good. Defendants lost in all fronts to get the sale deed registered. Since the title remains with the plaintiff and the plaintiff got the suit land by dint of will executed by his deceased father, he is entitled to get recovery of possession. It is emphatically submitted by learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Bhowmik that the defendants did not take the plea of Section 53A in their pleadings and so, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court was totally wrong in not decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. He has also submitted that the application of the doctrine of part performance is to be used as a shield and if it is not pleaded and no prayer is made to get the benefit of Section 53A, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court would not grant any relief in favour of the defendants. 20. Countering the submission of learned Sr. counsel Mr. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that plaintiff is to prove his own case irrespective of the defence taken by the defendants. If any relief claimed by the defendants is not entertainable because of operation of any law, the plaintiff cannot get such relief. The pleadings of the parties made it abundantly clear that the plaintiff cannot get a relief due to the operation of Section 53A. It is not a question of giving relief to the defendants but it is a question whether the plaintiff in the given facts and circumstances is entitled to a decree of recovery of possession. According to Mr. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel, the plaintiff in his own pleadings and evidence set himself in the net of the operation of Section 53A and therefore, the plaintiff cannot get any relief. 21. Section 53A has already been reproduced above in the quoted finding of the appellate Court. The doctrine of part performance, based on principles of equity, developed in England and was subsequently added to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 by way of amendment. 21. Section 53A has already been reproduced above in the quoted finding of the appellate Court. The doctrine of part performance, based on principles of equity, developed in England and was subsequently added to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 by way of amendment. 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 as, 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 where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor 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 right expressly provided by the terms of the contract. Essentials of the doctrine of part performance are-- i. There must be a written contract for transfer of an immoveable property signed by or on behalf of the transferor. The doctrine cannot be applied if there is a void agreement or no agreement. ii. There must be consideration; iii. The contracts should give out the terms of the transfer with reasonable certainty; iv. The transferee must have taken possession as a result of the contract or continued in possession if he was already in possession of the property; v. The transferee must have done some act in furtherance of the contract; and vi. The transferee should have performed his part of his deal or be willing to perform it. 22. The transferee must have taken possession as a result of the contract or continued in possession if he was already in possession of the property; v. The transferee must have done some act in furtherance of the contract; and vi. The transferee should have performed his part of his deal or be willing to perform it. 22. In the case at hand, it is an admitted position that Sakhi Charan on receipt of consideration of ` 32,500/- executed a sale deed and it has also been decided by both the Court of fact that Sakhi Charan handed over possession to the predecessor of the defendant-respondents Atish Chandra Bardhan and Atish Bardhan who was originally a tenant stopped payment of rent because he already paid the consideration money for the sold out land and the deed was presented for registration but registration was refused as stated by the plaintiff himself because of undervalued and thereafter the defendants approached different authorities by way of filing appeal/suit for getting the deed registered. It is, therefore, evident that the doctrine of part performance is correctly applied in the suit and both the trial Court and appellate Court rightly refused relief of recovery of possession to the plaintiff. 23. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff praying for recovery of possession. It is abundantly established that the title of the suit land remains with the plaintiff because only by a registered instrument title is liable to be transferred. But the father of the plaintiff handed over possession on receipt of the consideration money and a sale deed was executed. Because of non registration of the sale deed, the title did not pass to the defendants but the possession has been handed over by the seller Sakhi Charan to the predecessor of the defendants. The plaintiff in the circumstances has to prove his case that he is entitled to get recovery of possession. The defendants did not take the plea of part performance. The counter claim of the defendants has been dismissed and they did not prefer any appeal. In the counter claim the defendants set up a claim of adverse possession that has been refused by Court. The defendants did not plea part performance and did not seek any relief by way of counter claim on the doctrine of part performance. The counter claim of the defendants has been dismissed and they did not prefer any appeal. In the counter claim the defendants set up a claim of adverse possession that has been refused by Court. The defendants did not plea part performance and did not seek any relief by way of counter claim on the doctrine of part performance. Therefore, there was no question of granting any relief to the defendants using the shield of the doctrine of the part performance. The argument of learned Sr. counsel Mr. Bhowmik that relief has been granted in favour of the defendants cannot be accepted as a good argument, since the defendants claim has been dismissed by the Courts below and the Courts below arrived at a concurrent finding that the plaintiff cannot get the relief of recovery of possession because of the operation of law under Section 53A. 24. Learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Bhowmik in support of his contention referred the decisions of --- (i) Messrs. Trojan & Co. V. RM.M.M. Nagappa Chettiar, reported in AIR 1953 SC 235 ; (ii) Manohar Lal (Dead) by Lrs. V. Ugrasen (Dead) by Lrs. and others with Ghaziabad Development Authority V. Ugrasen (dead) by Lrs.& Others, reported in : (2010) 11 SCC 557 ; (iii) State of Maharashtra & Others V. Narmada Estates Private Limited & Others, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 419 and (iv) State of Orissa and another V. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 and submitted that where the defendant(s) did not set up any claim under the principles of doctrine of part performance, the trial Court and the appellate Court was wrong in granting relief in favour of the defendants. 25. It is a settled position that Court cannot grant a relief which has not been specifically prayed by the parties. In the present suit, the plaintiff specifically prayed for recovery of possession of the suit land and that prayer of the plaintiff has been adjudicated by the Courts below that the plaintiff is not entitled to get recovery of possession because of operation of law of doctrine of part performance. No relief has been granted in favour of the defendants on the claim under Section 53A of T.P. Act. The case laws referred by the learned Sr. counsel, therefore, are totally misplaced and not at all relevant in the issue to be decided in this appeal. 26. No relief has been granted in favour of the defendants on the claim under Section 53A of T.P. Act. The case laws referred by the learned Sr. counsel, therefore, are totally misplaced and not at all relevant in the issue to be decided in this appeal. 26. It is further submitted by learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Bhowmik that the claim of the defendants right, title, interest by way of adverse possession has been rejected and therefore, the title of the plaintiff has been established and so the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree of recovery of possession of the suit land. 27. Mr. Chakraborty, learned sr. counsel for the defendants submitted that the plaintiff did not come with clean hand and therefore, cannot get any relief in the suit from a Court of equity. The plaintiff has admitted that his father received consideration and handed over possession of the suit land to the predecessor of the defendants but the plaintiff did not utter whisper in the pleadings about the consideration money paid by the predecessor of the defendants to the father of the plaintiff. No doubt the plea of adverse possession, the defendants could not establish. That does not mean that they are liable to be evicted from the suit land. The plaintiff since could not prove his case for the purpose of recovery of possession, plaintiff cannot get any relief. 28. While arguing on this point, learned Sr. counsel Mr. Bhowmik referred the decision in the case of Mohan Lal (deceased) through his LRs. Kachru & Ors. V. Mira Abdul Gaffar & Anr., reported in : AIR 1996 SC 910 and the case of D.S. Parvathamma V.A. Srinivasan, reported in : (2003) 4 SCC 705 . The facts and circumstances are quite distinguishable and I find no relevance at all to apply the ratio of those decisions in the fact of the present case. 29. V. Mira Abdul Gaffar & Anr., reported in : AIR 1996 SC 910 and the case of D.S. Parvathamma V.A. Srinivasan, reported in : (2003) 4 SCC 705 . The facts and circumstances are quite distinguishable and I find no relevance at all to apply the ratio of those decisions in the fact of the present case. 29. In the fact of D.S. Parvathamma (supra), the appellant failed to prove his character as lessee and also failed to prove that possession was delivered to him in part performance of the agreement whereas in the present case, the plaintiff himself admitted that the sale deed was executed by his father on receipt of consideration money and it is also proved that possession was handed over to the predecessor of the defendants on the date of execution of the sale deed and the predecessor of the defendants acted upon and was ready and willing to perform his part to get the sale deed registered but the sale deed could not be registered and for that reason, the defendants cannot be ousted from the suit land. Their possession is liable to be protected under Section 53A of the T.P. Act. I find no perversity in the judgment passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. 30. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed with costs. 31. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.