JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiffs/ appellants herein instituted, a suit against the defendants, claiming therein a decree, for possession of land comprised in khasra Nos.691, 692, 693, 694 and 696, measuring 783.39 square meters, situated in village Shamsherpur, Paonta Sahib as well as a decree for damages of Rs.1,80,000/- with costs of the suit. The suit of the plaintiffs stood dismissed by the learned trial Court. The plaintiffs/appellants standing aggrieved by the impugned verdict, hence, concert to assail it, by preferring an appeal therefrom before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Amar Nath was the owner of the suit property at village Shamsherpur, Paonta Sahib and also at other places. Sh. Amar Nath was having one son Shri Ram Parkash and a daughter. Sh. Amar Nath executed his last will on 31.3.1984, which was duly registered with Sub Registrar, Dehradun on 3.4.1984, vide which he bequeathed his property in favour of his grand sons Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, defendant No.2. After the death of Shri Amar Nath, necessary mutation of inheritance was attested in favour of Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar. After the attestation of mutation, both the brothers, namely, Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar started selling the property. Ramesh Kumar, defendant No.2 has appointed Suresh Kumar as his General Power of Attorney and he authorised him to make any alienation by way of sale or otherwise. Ramesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar sold the land comprised in khasra No.221/144/1, measuring 17 biswas, situated in village Shamsherpur, Paonta Sahib through, registered sale deed of 25.4.1987 in favour of Smt. Veena Sharma wife of Suresh Kumar for consideration of Rs.15000/- and also delivered the possession at he spot. Smt. Veena Sharma purchased the property as shown in the sale deed and tatima attached with the sale deed. Defendant No.2, Ramesh Kumar knowing that his brother Suresh Kumar already sold 17 biswas of land in favour of Smt. Veena Sharma, taking undue advantage of non incorporation of the sale deed in the revenue record, procured a gift deed dated 11.11.1987, which was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Paonta Sahib. On the basis of which Suresh Kumar obtained 9 biswas of land from Suresh Kumar. On the basis of which Suresh Kumar obtained 9 biswas of land from Suresh Kumar. According to the plaintiffs Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar had already sold the entire 17 biswas of land and nothing was left, but he got the gift deed created and registered on 11.11.1987. The gift deed has no value in the eye of law as Suresh Kumar was not in possession of 9 biswas of land, hence, he is not entitled to transfer the same. The plaintiffs have further alleged that the defendant No.2 in collusion with Suresh Kumar committed fraud by executing the gift deed, which is of no consequence. Smt. Veena Sharma died in a motor vehicle accident on 18.11.2000 and the plaintiffs have succeeded to her estate. After death of Veena Sharma, the plaintiffs have come to know about the fraud which the defendant No.2 has committed in collusion with Suresh Kumar. Defendant No.2 executed a sale deed of 16.03.1988 in favour of defendant No.1 for 10 biswas of land for a total consideration of Rs.49,000/- Another sale deed of 17.03.1988 was also executed in respect of remaining 7 biswas of land in favour of one Ayaz Ahmed for total consideration of Rs.20,000/-. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 as well as Ayaz Ahmed were knowing that the land has already been purchased by Smt. Veena Sharma, who was in possession, hence, the subsequent sale deeds in favour of Ayaz Ahmed and defendant No.1 are the result of fraud. Smt. Veena Sharma, who purchased the suit property remained in possession through out. Ayaz Ahmed has released 7 biswas of land in favour of defendant No.1 The plaintiffs have further alleged that defendant No.1 has taken the possession of the suit property and the plaintiffs are not deprived from its profit and they are entitled for damages at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month for the last 3 years and they claimed the damages to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-. The plaintiffs have further alleged that after the death of Veena Sharma, they inherited her estate and they are entitled to seek relief. Hence, the suit. 3. The original defendants contested the suit and filed separate written statements. The plaintiffs have further alleged that after the death of Veena Sharma, they inherited her estate and they are entitled to seek relief. Hence, the suit. 3. The original defendants contested the suit and filed separate written statements. Defendant No.1 in his written statement taken preliminary objections inter alia, maintainability, bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties, locus standi, estoppel, collusion inter se plaintiffs and defendant No.2 and that the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs under Section 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and cause of action. On merits, defendant No.1 has admitted the contents of paras No.1 and 2 of the plaint as also admitted the part of para No.3 of the plaint. It is averred that neither defendant No.2 nor Suresh Kumar were the owners in possession of the suit property and thus they are ot entitled to execute the General Power of Attorney. It is further alleged that the sale deed of 24.4.1987 is fictitious which was never acted upon as the property of S/Shri Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar was mortgaged with H.P. Financial Corporation in July, 1977 for a loan of Rs.49,000/-, which they have taken for installing oil mill in the name and style of M/s Bharthari Oil Mills, Shamsherpur. Both Ramesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar, failed to pay the loan installments, as such, the HPFC took over the suit property and auctioned the same, which was pruchased by one Daljeet Kumar of Sehjadpur House, Ambala City, Haryana FOR Rs. One lac. The property was resold by Daljeet Kumar to Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar as per agreement executed. According to defendant No.1, as Suresh Kumar was not having valid title on 26.4.1987, hence, he was not entitled to execute any document in favour of Veena Sharma. He has also denied the raising of any construction of residential house by Smt. Veena Sharma, as is evident from the loan discharge certificate dated 10.03.1987 and other documents executed by Daljeet Kumar on 4.12.1987. Defendant No.1 has denied that the gift deed dated 11.11.1987 is illegal and wrong which was allegedly executed by Suresh Kumar in favour of Ramesh Kumar. They have also denied the succession of Veena Sharma by the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 has admitted that defendant No.2, has executed the sale deed in favour of Mohd. Defendant No.1 has denied that the gift deed dated 11.11.1987 is illegal and wrong which was allegedly executed by Suresh Kumar in favour of Ramesh Kumar. They have also denied the succession of Veena Sharma by the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 has admitted that defendant No.2, has executed the sale deed in favour of Mohd. Ansari, defendant No.1 and another sale deed of 7 biswas executed in favour of Ayaz Ahmed. He has admitted that Ayaz Ahmed has relinquished his rights in the property measuring 7 biswas in favour of defendant No.1, as per release deed dated 31.10.1997. All the plaintiffs including Veena Sharma and defendant No.2 were living in separate premises known as S.K. Steel. The defendant No.1 has purchased the suit property after making necessary inquiries from the Halqua Patwari, who issued the non encumbrance certificate which was duly countersigned by the Tehsildar, Paonta Sahib. The plaintiffs, Veena Sharma, Suresh Kumar and Defendant No.2 at that time did not disclose any alleged defect in the title of S/Shri Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar. He has denied the remaining contents of the plaint and prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 4. Defendant No.2 has filed separate written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs. He has stated that gift deed was executed by Smt. Veena Sharma in his favour to the extent of 9 biswas. The gift deed was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Paonta Sahib. The gift deed of 9 biswas land was given by Smt. Veena Sharma to him out of her free will on account of the prevailing circumstances of the family. He has admitted that he sold 10 biswas of land to defendant No.1 and 7 biswas to Shri Ayaz Ahmed as per sale deed dated 16.03.1988 and 17.03.1988 respectively. According to him, he acquired 9 biswas of land through gift deed which was executed by Veena Sharma in his favour and remaining 8 biwas being his share in the property. He has denied the remaining contents of the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The plaintiffs/appellants herein filed replication to the written statement of defendant/respondent No.1, wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. 5. The plaintiffs/appellants herein filed replication to the written statement of defendant/respondent No.1, wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the possession of suit property comprised in Kh. NO. 691 to 694 and 696, measuring 783.39 sq. meters situated in Village Shamsherpur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is a result of fraud, if so, its effect? OPP 3. Whether the gift deed dated 11.11.1987 executed by Suresh Kumar in favour of Ramesh Kumar is a result of fraud and misrepresentation, if so, its effect? OPP 4. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD-1 6. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD-1 7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD-1 8. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act, conduct and acquiescence to file the present suit? OPD-1 9. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD-1 10. Whether the defendant No.1 has become owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of sale deed executed by defendant No.2 on 4.12.1984 as alleged? OPD-1 11. Whether the defendant No.1 is bonafide purchaser of the suit property for valuable consideration, as alleged? OPD-1 12. Whether the defendant No.1 has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession? OPD-1 13. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants herein. 8. Now the plaintiffs/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular First Appeal before this Court, for assailing the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in its impugned judgment and decree. 9. The pertinent issues whereon an adjudication is warranted are issues No. 2, 3, 11 and 12. 8. Now the plaintiffs/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular First Appeal before this Court, for assailing the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in its impugned judgment and decree. 9. The pertinent issues whereon an adjudication is warranted are issues No. 2, 3, 11 and 12. In making a pronouncement upon the aforesaid issues, it is to be borne in mind, that under a general power of attorney executed by Ramesh Kumar, defendant No.2, the latter constituted one Suresh Kumar, as his attorney for making alienations through sale deeds, of properties delineated therein. In sequel to the execution of a general power of attorney aforesaid, validity whereof remains unchallenged, Suresh Kumar under a registered deed of conveyance borne on Ex. P-1, alienated the suit property vis-a-vis one Veena Sharma, deed of conveyance whereof stood executed besides registered on 25.04.1987. However, despite the aforesaid alienation occurring under Ex. P-1, upon one Veena Sharma, Suresh Kumar subsequently proceeded to vis-a-vis Ramesh Kumar execute a gift deed, borne on Ex.P-4, purportedly with respect to the suit property also purportedly with respect to the property purportedly borne on Ex.P-1. Visibly, hence, one Suresh Kumar, the duly constituted general power of attorney of Ramesh Kumar, making under Ex. P-1 a purported valid/lawful alienation of the suit property vis-a-vis Veena Sharma, he was apparently barred to, subsequently with respect to the property carried in Ex.P-1, proceed to vis-a-vis Ramesh Kumar execute a gift deed, borne on Ex.P-4. However, Ex. P-4, would be construable to be gripped with a stain of invalidity, only when with the property alienated thereunder also evidently standing borne in Ex.P-1. Whereas, in case the apt evidence carries a display, that the property alienated by Suresh Kumar, the duly constituted GPA of Ramesh Kumar, for the relevant purpose of his making alienations of their jointly held shares, in the undivided property borne in khasra number 221/144 “ not” holding any affinity with the property previously alienated under Ex. P-1 or an incisive perusal of the relevant evidence making a disclosure that after the execution of Ex. P-1, an apt subtraction from the area jointly held by both in the undivided lands/properties, revealing, his yet holding a residual alienable interest therein, thereupon, gift deed borne on Ex. P-4 would not lose its validity. Moreover, concomitantly, the alienation effected by Ramesh Kumar under Ex. D-1 would also not lose its validity. 10. P-1, an apt subtraction from the area jointly held by both in the undivided lands/properties, revealing, his yet holding a residual alienable interest therein, thereupon, gift deed borne on Ex. P-4 would not lose its validity. Moreover, concomitantly, the alienation effected by Ramesh Kumar under Ex. D-1 would also not lose its validity. 10. In determining the aforesaid facet, it is imperative to allude to the fact that under Ex.P-1, land borne on khasra No.221/144/1, measuring 17 biswas, stood alienated by Suresh Kumar, the duly constituted GPA of Ramesh Kumar vis-a-vis one Ms. Veena Sharma. The aforesaid alienation is not only with respect to his share in the aforesaid khasra number but also is with respect to the share therein of Ramesh Kumar. The aforesaid reflections borne in Ex. P-1 when considered with the fact of Suresh Kumar under Ex.P-4 “alienating” his 1/6 share held in an area measuring 2 bighas 13 biswas, borne on khasra No. 221/144 “to” his brother Ramesh Kumar besides the jamabandi appended to Ex.P-1, revealing that the total land borne on khasra number 221/144 is held in an area of 6 bighas 19 biswas, does visibly hold the effect of the share held by Suresh Kumar in khasra No.221/144, share whereof he alienated under Ex.P-1, hence, “not” comprising the one with respect to which he executed Ex.P-4. The reason for forming the aforesaid conclusion ensues from the fact of when at the time contemporaneous to the execution of Ex. P-1, on an apt subtraction being made vis-a-vis the total joint land held by both the aforesaid, land whereof finds its display in the jambandi appended to Ex. P-1, its revealing that yet a residual alienable interest therein vis-a-vis Suresh Kumar, hence, remaining intact, thereupon, there occurs no conflict inter se the land depicted in Ex. P-1 vis-a-vis the land depicted in Ex.P-4. Consequently, with no overlapping occurring vis-a-vis the land with respect to which Ex.P-1 stood executed inter se Suresh Kumar and Veena Sharma, vis-a-vis Ex. P-4, which stood executed by Suresh Kumar upon his brother Ramesh Kumar, hence, enhances an inference that both exhibits Ex. P-1 and Ex.P-4 holding binding force besides validity. Moreover, excepting bald pleadings with respect to occurrence of overlappings of lands borne on Ex. P-1 and on Ex. P-4, which stood executed by Suresh Kumar upon his brother Ramesh Kumar, hence, enhances an inference that both exhibits Ex. P-1 and Ex.P-4 holding binding force besides validity. Moreover, excepting bald pleadings with respect to occurrence of overlappings of lands borne on Ex. P-1 and on Ex. P-4, no firm evidence to substantiate them stands adduced also the aforesaid inference as erected by this Court remains unconcerted to be repulsed by the appellants. Therefore, the pleaded factum probandum remain unproven. 11. Now, it is to be determined whether the alienation effected by Ramesh Kumar under Ex. D-1 on 16.3.1988 upon one Muhhamad Shafi Ansari, son of Shri Fakir Muhhamad Ansari is or not with respect to property borne on Ex.P-1, also it is to be determined whether the property alienated under Ex. D-1 by Ramesh Kumar vis-a-vis one Muhhamad Shafi Ansari (since deceased) is or is not in conflict with the recitals carried in Ex.P-4. Since, this Court has already determined that there occurs no concurrence with respect to the lands alienated respectively under Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-4, hence, reiteratedly this Court is enjoined to determine whether the execution of Ex.D-1 is with respect to land, wherein, the vendor thereof yet held a lawful alienable title. Ex.P-4 makes a disclosure that with respect to 1/6 share of Ramesh Kumar also with respect to 1/6 share of Suresh Kumar, the latter holding title upon land comprised in Khasra no.221/144. Now the aforesaid recitals borne in Ex.P-4 also find reflection in Ex. D-1. Consequently, with the enunciations occurring at page-2 of Ex. D-1, displaying that the share in khasra No. 221/144 of Ramesh Kumar, standing constituted in an area of 17 biswas, when visibly do not suffer from any falsity nor suffers from theirs begetting conflict either with Ex. P-1 and with Ex.P-4. Conspicuously also with after execution of Ex. P-4, the residual alienable title constituted in an area of 17 biswas, continuing to remain vested in Ramesh Kumar, 17 biswas whereof stood alienated under Ex.D-1, hence, begets an inference that the alienation made under Ex. D-1 by Ramesh Kumar was with respect to land/property wherein he held a lawful alienable title. In aftermath, with Ramesh Kumar hence holding a ripened valid title with respect to land measuring 17 biswas borne on khasra No. 221/144, he was capacitated to under a registered of conveyance borne on Ex. D-1 by Ramesh Kumar was with respect to land/property wherein he held a lawful alienable title. In aftermath, with Ramesh Kumar hence holding a ripened valid title with respect to land measuring 17 biswas borne on khasra No. 221/144, he was capacitated to under a registered of conveyance borne on Ex. D-1, convey a valid title upon its vendee. The further corollary of the aforesaid, is that it not being either necessary to delve into evidence in display of defendant No.1 (since deceased) being a bonafide purchaser for a valuable consideration of the properties borne on Ex. D-1 nor also it is imperative to pronounce an adjudication qua probative worth thereof. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has proceeded to make a submission, that with one Daljeet Kumar purchasing the suit property, in an auction held by the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation, auction whereof was conducted for facilitating the H.P. Financial Corporation to realize a loan of 49,000/- which Ramesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar, borrowed therefrom, for installing an Oil Mill in the name of M/s Bharthari Oil mills, Shamsherpur, hence, unless evidence stood adduced in display of Daljeet Kumar, making under a registered deed of conveyance, a lawful alienation thereof also unless firm evidence stood adduced, in display of the alienation made by Daljeet Kumar upon Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, occurring prior to the execution of Ex. P-1, Ex.P-4 and Ex. D-1, thereupon, would render the latter exhibits to lose their validity. To carry forward his submission, he alluded to Ex. Px also to Ex. D-5, exhibits whereof do not reflect that one Daljeet Kumar, the owner of the suit property “making” under a registered deed of conveyance executed vis-a-vis Ramesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar, “any alienation” in respect thereto, hence, Ex. P-4 and Ex. D-1 executed subsequent thereto, do not prima facie enjoy their apposite legal solemnity. The aforesaid submission, though holding pin pointed accuracy yet before imputing forthright vigour thereto, it is also imperative to allude, to Ex. Px. Ex. Px stood executed on 10.07.1986 by Daljeet Kumar, he therein articulates qua his not only receiving the entire sale consideration from Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, with respect to the suit property, besides he also echoes therein qua his handing over possession thereof to the aforesaid. Since, the authorship of Ex. Px, remains not contested, consequently all the displays occurring therein hold tenacity. Since, the authorship of Ex. Px, remains not contested, consequently all the displays occurring therein hold tenacity. In sequel, the counsel for the appellant contends that even if the aforesaid Daljit Kumar not contesting his authoring Ex. Px, contest whereof would be comprised in his instituting a suit against Suresh Kumar and against Ramesh Kumar with respect to the property reflected therein, whereas evident, absence of institution of any apposite suit by aforesaid Daljeet Kumar, cannot facilitate the defendants to mobilize any strength therefrom, qua hence the statutory benefit of the doctrine of part performance, embodied in the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), being ensuable vis-avis them, especially when it is available for its apt leveraging by the defendants only as a shield or in defence. Reiteratedly, its benefit is hence not ensuable vis-a-vis Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, significantly when they evidently do not rear it, in defence in a suit instituted against them by Daljeet Kumar. Provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act stand extracted hereinafter:- “53A Part performance.- Where any person contract 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 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.” 13. The aforesaid leveraging, of the statutory benefits contemplated in Section 53-A of the “Act” would yet also ensue with respect to Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, for the reasons that (a) though in a catena of verdicts, the statutory benefit embodied in Section 53-A of the Act. is propounded therein to be canvassable, as a defence, by the transferee, in a suit instituted by the transferor against the transferee, however, evidently with no suit standing instituted by Daljeet kumar against Ramesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar, wherein, he challenges his authoring Ex. Px, hence, it would be unjust to rigidly insist that the diktat of a catena of judicial verdicts, propagating therein, the ensual of the benefit of the doctrine of part performance enshrined in Section 53-A of the Act, accruing only with respect to defendants also only when it is reared as a defence in a suit reared by the transferor, significantly when the excepting principle vis-a-vis the domain of Section 53-A of the Act is comprised in ; (b) the transferors under Ex.P-1, Ex.P-4 and Ex. D-1 being Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, both brothers in the undivided suit property, property whereof they acquired under a testamentary disposition executed respectively in their favour by their father, hence, theirs within the ambit of Section 53-A holding an ill right, if any, hereat besides an ill locus standi hereat, as transferors respectively of Ex.P-1, Ex. P-4 and Ex. D-1, to ill challenge them, whereas, in their respective life times theirs omitting to throw any ill challenges upon the aforesaid exhibits, hence, in sequel, the successors in interest respectively of one Suresh Kumar and one Ramesh Kumar, the relevant transferors in the aforesaid relevant exhibits, do not hold any right rather they stand debarred from enforcing any right upon the respective transferees in respect of properties mentioned in Ex. P-4 and Ex. D-1 ; (c) the fact of non alienation through a registered deed of conveyance, of properties borne in Ex. Px, would also not erode the play of the diktat of Section 53-A of the Act, given with pronouncements occurring therein, of Daljeet Kumar receiving from both Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, the entire sale consideration with respect to property borne on Ex. Px, fact whereof stands corroborated by recitals occurring in Ex. Px, would also not erode the play of the diktat of Section 53-A of the Act, given with pronouncements occurring therein, of Daljeet Kumar receiving from both Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, the entire sale consideration with respect to property borne on Ex. Px, fact whereof stands corroborated by recitals occurring in Ex. Px, authorship of both exhibits aforesaid remains not contested, hence, with Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, within the ambit of Section 53A of the Act, taking possession from Daljeet Kumar “of” the property reflected in Ex. Px also with the entire sale consideration in respect thereto standing received by Daljeet Kumar from them, hence, constrains an inference that the recitals embodied in Ex. Px and Ex. D-5, even if, both are unilaterally executed hence attracting the sequel, that yet a valid subsisting contract of transfer with respect to property displayed in Ex. Px, hence, occurring inter se Daljeet Kumar vis-a-vis Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar also the relevant contract of transfer being fully carried into performance. Momentum to the aforesaid inference is marshalled by the fact of the recitals occurring therein not standing eroded by none of the contesting parties not leading Daljeet Kumar into the witness box. Consequently, when the best evidence for eroding the veracity of the recitals occurring in the aforesaid exhibits remains unadduced, the communications occurring therein acquire conclusivity. Corollary whereof is that the entire gamut of the principles embodied in Section 53-A of the Act warranting attraction with respect to the property borne in Ex. Px. Further consequence whereof, is despite Daljeet Kumar “not” executing a registered deed of conveyance with respect to the suit property, want thereof not dispelling the validity of Ex. Px and D-5, significantly when both attract thereon the principle of part performance embodied in Section 53-A of the Act, hence, with the non obstante clause occurring therein “saving transfers” not completed in the manner prescribed by law, rendered unnecessary the execution by Daljeet Kumar, of a registered deed of conveyance with respect to the suit property vis-a-vis Ramesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar. Predominantly, with Ex. Px standing tendered into evidence by the plaintiffs, they are concomitantly estopped from making any submission that it does not fall within the ambit of Section 53-A of the Act also with hence theirs despite holding knowledge with respect of Ex. Predominantly, with Ex. Px standing tendered into evidence by the plaintiffs, they are concomitantly estopped from making any submission that it does not fall within the ambit of Section 53-A of the Act also with hence theirs despite holding knowledge with respect of Ex. Px, theirs not rearing any plea that it does not fall within the ambit of Section 53-A of the Act also estops their counsel to contend that it does not attract the principle of part performance embedded in Section 53-A of the Act. Moreover, with Ex. Px standing executed prior to Ex. P1, thereupon also the appellants are estopped to throw any challenge that it falls outside the ambit of Section 53-A of the Act, more so, when they hence would invalidate Ex. P-1. 14. In view of the above discussion, the present Regular First Appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.