JUDGMENT: 1. The present appeal has been directed against judgment and decree dated 30.01.2004 in A.S.No.21 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge at Karimnagar, wherein and whereby the judgment and decree dated 09.02.1998 passed in O.S.No.1156 of 1992 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, was confirmed. The said suit was filed by the respondents herein for perpetual injunction restraining the appellants herein from interfering with the suit property. The present appeal is at the instance of the first defendant. 2. The appellant herein is the first defendant, first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the second respondent herein is the second defendant in the said suit. The appeal against the second respondent is dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred to in the suit. 3. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiff is that he entered into agreement of sale with one Awaz Bin Musallam, represented by his General Power of Attorney Holder Abdulla Bin Awaz, in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-02 guntas forming part of Sy. No.1068, situated at Mankammathota, Karimnagar Town and District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’). The sale consideration alleged to have been agreed was Rs.40,000/-. Out of the said amount, he paid Rs.30,000/- on the date of agreement of sale i.e., 31.07.1992 to Abdulla Bin Awaz and he delivered the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit property and he dug structures and fixed boundaries. Subsequently, on 17.09.1992, he paid further amount of Rs.5,000/-. The General Power of Attorney holder agreed to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in the month of November, 1992 after receipt of Rs.5,000/-. As such, the defendants have no right over the suit property. When the defendants, without any right or authority over the suit property tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff, he filed the present suit. 4. The case of the defendants is that Awaz Bin Musallam, being the absolute owner of suit land, had gifted the suit property and other lands in favour of the second defendant, who is his son, and possession was also delivered to him. 4. The case of the defendants is that Awaz Bin Musallam, being the absolute owner of suit land, had gifted the suit property and other lands in favour of the second defendant, who is his son, and possession was also delivered to him. The second defendant also obtained a decree in his favour in O.S. No.232 of 1975 on the file of District Munsiff, Karimnagar, on 21.08.1975 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-14½ guntas in Sy.No.1068. Ever since, he has been in possession of the said property. Subsequently, he has executed a registered sale deed on 13.08.1992 vide registered sale deed document No.3842 of 1992 to the first defendant and delivered the possession, and he has no better title over the property. The General Power of Attorney executed in favour of Abdulla Bin Awaz was revoked on 31.03.1993. Thereby the transaction made under the said General Power of Attorney becomes null and void and prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Primary Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? 2. To what relief?” 6. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined PWs.1to 5 and relied upon Ex.A-1 to A-19. On behalf of defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and relied upon Ex.B-1 to B-9. 7. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff established his possession over the suit property by virtue of the agreement of sale and that the defendants failed to establish their claim of gift and also the claim that the suit property falling within the boundaries of the suit property in O.S.No.232 of 1975 (Ex.A-9) and consequently injunction was granted. Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal is filed at the instance of the defendants. 8. This Court, by referring to ground No.8 of the memorandum of grounds, admitted the appeal, but such a procedure is not in tune with Section 100 of CPC and also the decision of the Apex Court, as per which, the Court hearing the Second Appeal has to frame the substantial questions of law. Therefore, the following substantial question of law is re-framed: “Whether the findings of the Courts below holding that the plaintiff established his possession under Ex.A-1 and that he is entitled to protection in the light of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, suffer from any perversity?” 9. Therefore, the following substantial question of law is re-framed: “Whether the findings of the Courts below holding that the plaintiff established his possession under Ex.A-1 and that he is entitled to protection in the light of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, suffer from any perversity?” 9. Heard learned counsel for both sides on the above substantial question of law. Findings on the substantial question of law: 10. The evidence on record shows that originally, Awaz Bin Musallam was the pattedar and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.11-15 guntas in Sy.No.1068, situated at Mankammathota, Karimnagar Town and District. Exs.A-5, A-18 and A-19 also show that Awaz Bin Musallam was the pattedar of the land in Sy.No.1068. However, in the pahani for the year 1991-92, his name was reflected in the pattedar column only, but the possessor column is silent. 11. The case of the plaintiff is that the land which is sold under Ex.A-1 was the land of Abdul Bin Awaz, who is the one of son of Awaz Bin Musallam. The second defendant is another son of Awaz Bin Musallam. The first defendant is claiming that he purchased the land from the second defendant under Ex.B-1 sale deed which is subsequent to the agreement of sale executed by executed by Abdul Bin Awaz in the capacity of GPA Holder of Awaz Bin Musallam. The suit property consists of Ac.0-02 guntas which the plaintiff purchased under Ex.A-1. 12. The case of the defendants is that the father of the second defendant gifted an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0-14½ guntas in Sy.No.1068 under an oral gift and the suit property forms part of the said gifted land. 13. To substantiate the oral gift, the second defendant relied upon Ex.A-9, the decree, obtained against his father (Awaz Bin Musallam) in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-14½ guntas. Ex.A-9 is dated 15.03.1975. It is the foundational document for the defendants to claim title and possession. The agreement of sale is dated 31.07.1992. This was based on the GPA dated 09.07.1992 (Ex.A-2). The said GPA was executed by Awaz Bin Musallam in favour of Abdul Bin Awaz. Basing on the said GPA, the said agreement of sale was executed agreeing to sell the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-, and on the date of execution of the agreement of sale, Rs.30,000/- was paid. Subsequently, on 17.09.1992, further sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid. Basing on the said GPA, the said agreement of sale was executed agreeing to sell the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-, and on the date of execution of the agreement of sale, Rs.30,000/- was paid. Subsequently, on 17.09.1992, further sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid. As per the plaintiff, remaining amount was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed which was agreed to be done in the month of November, 1992. The second defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the first defendant on 13.08.1992, and thereafter, the GPA was cancelled on 13.03.1993 (Ex.B-3). This document was cancelled much after the disputes arose between the parties. By the date of cancellation of GPA, the son of original pattedar executed the sale deed. 14. There is no dispute that under Ex.A-9/B-2, the second defendant obtained declaratory decree against his father, who was the original pattedar. The said decree was obtained in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-14½ guntas. There is also no dispute that in the said decree, there is no demarcation of the boundaries. 15. As seen from the evidence on record, the entire Sy.No.1068 consists of land admeasuring Ac.11-15 guntas, and only the land admeasuring Ac.0-14½ guntas claimed to have gifted by the pattedar in favour of the second defendant. This means, the demarcation of the property gifted must be clear so as to identify the location of the property which is gifted under the oral gift and confirmed by way of declaratory decree, as claimed by the second defendant. 16. Abdullah Bin Awaz was examined as one of the witnesses i.e., P.W.5. His evidence shows that the property which he has sold out to the plaintiff was the property allocated to him towards his share. P.W.5, On the strength of GPA, the property which was allocated to him by his father under the partition, had executed agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. He also admitted that Rs.35,000/- was paid by the plaintiff and Rs.5,000/- was due. It is not his case that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of obligation. 17. The evidence also shows that the parties have contemplated for execution of a regular sale deed in the month of November, 1992. He also admitted that Rs.35,000/- was paid by the plaintiff and Rs.5,000/- was due. It is not his case that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of obligation. 17. The evidence also shows that the parties have contemplated for execution of a regular sale deed in the month of November, 1992. By that time, the sale deed in favour of the first defendant was executed by the second defendant and he tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff on the basis of the sale deed document under Ex.B-1. Therefore, the plaintiff compelled to file the suit on 23.09.1992, which was much before the date agreed for performance of contract, which is November, 1992. Therefore, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to plead with regard to readiness and willingness. There is a finding by the both the Courts below that Ex.A-1 was validly executed by P.W.5 in the capacity of GPA Holder representing his father, who was recorded as pattedar for the entire extent of land in Sy.No.1068. 18. The evidence of P.W.5 and D.W.2, who are the sons of Awaz Bin Musallam, shows that each one of them contended that the suit property was allocated to their respective shares. In the present case, though the plea of allocation of suit property to Abdul Bin Awaz was claimed, the document was executed in the capacity of GPA Holder representing Awaz Bin Musallam. The valid execution of the document is established since there is no dispute that original pattedar is Awaz Bin Musallam. 19. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to the institution of the proceedings, the executant of GPA i.e., Awaz Bin Musallam died after GPA was cancelled. Therefore, if both of them agree that the suit property belongs to Awaz Bin Musallam, and after his death, his sons acquired his interest, the necessity of expressing the readiness and willingness with regard to payment of balance consideration must be intimated to P.W.5 and D.W.2. However, D.W.2 is not accepting that he succeeded the rights from his father subsequent to creation of Ex.A-1 agreement of sale. On the contrary, he has set up his own title anterior to the execution of Ex.A-1. That means, he is not accepting flow of any rights from his father, after execution of Ex.A-1. The case of D.W.2 is different. However, D.W.2 is not accepting that he succeeded the rights from his father subsequent to creation of Ex.A-1 agreement of sale. On the contrary, he has set up his own title anterior to the execution of Ex.A-1. That means, he is not accepting flow of any rights from his father, after execution of Ex.A-1. The case of D.W.2 is different. It is his case that the suit property falling under the larger extent of land allocated to his share. 20. Both the Courts below have found that the defendants failed to establish that the suit property was falling to the share of the second defendant so as to confer better title and possession to the first defendant. When such is the plea of the defendants, this Court has to examine fulfillment of essential conditions contemplated under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act in the background of the above case set up by both the parties. 21. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property reads as under: “53-A. 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 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.” 22. A reading of the above provision, it is clear that to have the protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff must establish that there is a written contract to transfer the immovable property for consideration. Further, the plaintiff/transferee, in part performance of contract, has taken possession of the property under the sale agreement, or if he is already in possession, he continued to be in possession in part performance of contract and he has done the some act in furtherance of such a contract. Further, he has performed or expressed his willingness to perform his part of obligation under the contract. Upon establishing the above requirements, the person who got the possession under the written contract is entitled to claim protection. 23. The present agreement of sale is prior to amendment brought to Section 17 of the Registration Act. The amendment was made in the year 2001. Therefore, the embargo contained under the Registration Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The plaintiff, by his evidence established that there is a written contract under Ex.A-1, and in furtherance of contract as a part performance, possession was delivered upon receipt of Rs.30,000/- out of Rs.40,000/-, which is the total sale consideration. The terms in the contract to transfer the property constitute the transfer. 24. Further, there is no pleading to the effect that he was willing to perform his part of contract towards transferee or any person claiming under him. 25. Learned counsel for the defendants has contended that there is no pleading from the plaintiff to the effect that he was ready and willing to perform his part of obligation under the contract, whereunder he was required to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/-. According to him, since there is no such averment, the plaintiff is not entitled for protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. 26. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the defendants are claiming their independent title prior to the execution of Ex.A-1, as such, the plaintiff has no obligation express his readiness and willingness to go with the contract by offering the balance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- to D.W.2. At the most, P.W.5 is the person claiming the title and right in respect of the suit property on the strength of oral allocation. 27. At the most, P.W.5 is the person claiming the title and right in respect of the suit property on the strength of oral allocation. 27. The property held by Awaz Bin Musallamhas has not been disputed by both of his sons. Even though GPA was executed by Awaz Bin Musallam to convey the suit property through Abdul Bin Awaz (P.W.5), since both the sons i.e., P.W.5 and D.W.2 accepted that there was no title of their own on account of oral gift and partition, the requirement of expression of the readiness must be in favour of P.W.5, but not in favour of D.W.2 who has a different case of his own title which according to him existed much prior to execution of Ex.A-1. This means, he cannot come under the definition of transfer or any person claiming under him. The reason is that he has set up his own independent title much prior to Ex.A-1. 28. In the present case, P.W.5 is not saying that P.W.1 is not ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration which is only obligation to be performed by the plaintiff. There is also other reason for the plaintiff for not paying the balance sale consideration is much prior to the date contemplated for execution of the regular sale deed, Ex.B-1 document was created by the second defendant claiming rights over the property. In such a situation, the plaintiff cannot be expected to offer the balance sale consideration. On this ground also, the plaintiff has justifiable ground to postpone the willingness to perform his remaining part of the obligation. 29. From the evidence on record, the plaintiff has made out that he has established all the ingredients of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and these aspects were not considered by both the Court below. However, the Courts below rightly granted the relief in favour of the plaintiff on different aspects. In my opinion, the relief granted by both the Courts below requires no interference. 30. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2004 in A.S.No.21 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge at Karimnagar. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.