The Doctrine of Part Performance

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 seeks to protect the prospective transferees by
allowing them to retain the possession over the property, against the rights of the transferors,
who after the execution of an incomplete instrument of transfer, fail to complete it in the manner
specified by law, without there being any fault on part of the transferees. This section therefore
provides for a partial importation of the English doctrine of part performance. It furnishes a
statutory defense to a person who has no registered title in his favour to maintain possession. To
understand the concept in a better way, an elaboration is essential. The author has provided the
same by placing reliance on the statutory provisions as well as case laws.

Introduction

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 seeks to protect the prospective transferees by
allowing them to retain the possession over the property, against the rights of the transferors,
who after the execution of an incomplete instrument of transfer, fails to complete it in the
manner specified by law, without there being any fault on part of the transferee.1

In order to understand and analyse the given phrase, it is necessary to look into the just preceding
phrase that is “the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing
against the transferee and the persons claiming under him.”

While understanding the concerned phrase, it is important to know the meaning of “any right”,
“property” and “taken or continued in possession”, which the project will deal about. From
the preceding phrase, it is clear that the “any right” is talked about in respect of the transferor or
any person claiming under him to not to have his rights enforced against the rights of the
transferee and any person claiming under the transferee. Thus, the project will deal with “any
right of the transferor.” As to the property, the author shall look into the meaning and scope of
the word “property” and what all can be included in the word property. Also, the phrase “taken
or continued in possession” will be dealt with in order to establish a reasonable link with the
rights of the transferor and the transferee as any right is only subject to the possession being
taken or already in possession of the transferee and no other condition.

1 Poonam Pradhan, Property Law (2nd Edition, 2013, LexisNexis) 253.

CASES REFERRED

The property talked about in Section 53A of the transfer of Property Act, 1882 is the immovable
property which has been defined under Section 3 of the transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sec.
2(3)(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the Section 2(6) of the Registration Act, 1908 and
it nowhere includes movable property. This section applies only to contracts of transfer of
immovable property and not the movable property which has been confirmed in the case
of Ramchandrappa v. Satyanarayana.2 One essential for this Section to apply is that the transfer
should be for a consideration and where the contract transfer of property takes place without
consideration, the Section does not apply, which was stated in the case of Serandaya Pillai v.
Sankaralingam Pillai.3 If a person has taken possession of a property for the first time pursuant to
the contract, then the transferee might enforce his rights against the rights of the transferor as
per Govindrao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai4 Also, where a person is already in possession of a
property prior to contract, some act of part-performance done in furtherance of the contract
would reap benefit to the transferee which was said in the case of D.S. Parvarthamma v. A.
Srinivasan5 and Babu Murlidhar v. Soudagar Mohammad Abdul Bashir and Anr.6

Following are the cases discussed in details which are mentioned above:

1. Ramchandrappa v. Satyanarayana, AIR 1964 SC 877: (1964) 1 SCJ 109.

2. Serandaya Pillai v. Sankaralingam Pillai, (1959) 2 Mad LJ 502 (506).
3. Govindrao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai, AIR 1982 SC 989.
4. S. Parvarthamma v. A. Srinivasan, (2003) 4 SCC 705.
5. Babu Murlidhar v. Soudagar Mohammad Abdul Bashir and Anr, AIR 1970 Kant 203,
AIR 1970 Mys 203.

2 AIR 1964 SC 877: (1964) 1 SCJ 109.

3 (1959) 2 Mad LJ 502 (506).
4 AIR 1982 SC 989.

5 (2003) 4 SCC 705.

6 AIR 1970 Kant 203, AIR 1970 Mys 203.

STATUTES REFERRED

1. Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882

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
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.

The concept of part performance has been taken from English Law. This principle though is an
English doctrine, but in India it has been incorporated with some differences. Thus, the English
doctrine of Part Performance and the Indian doctrine of Part Performance are different in some
aspects. This principle was brought by the amendment made in the Transfer of Property Act.
Before the amendment, the English doctrine was applied to the cases of part performance. “This
doctrine is a partial importation of the English doctrine of part performance. It furnishes a
statutory defense to a person who has no registered title in his favour to maintain possession.”7

For applying the doctrine of Part performance, there are certain conditions that need to be
fulfilled which are as follows:

7 Sanjeeva Row, Transfer of Property Act, (Vol. 1, edition, 2012, Universal Law Publishers) 561.
  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,
 that the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, and
 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.8

Also, this doctrine, which is a statutory right,9 cannot be denied on the ground of laches.10This is
available only as a defense for the transferee against the transferor. The transferor’s rights, if
there exists the defense of part performance, cannot invoke any of his rights to get the property.
Though the right is available to the transferee against the transferor, and that it protects the right
of the transferee of possession over the property, it does not provide any entitlement to the
transferee. It only provide with the right to remain or obtain the possession over the property by
the transferee.

2. Section 3, Transfer of Property Act, 1882

“Immovable property” does not include standing timber, growing crops or grass.

3. Section 3(26), General Clauses Act, 1897

“Immovable property” shall include land, benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to
Earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the Earth.

4. Section 2(6), Registration Act, 1908

“Immovable property” includes land, buildings, hereditary allowances, right to ways, lights,
ferries, fisheries or any other benefit to arise out of land, and things attached to Earth, or
permanently fastened to anything which is attached to Earth, but not standing timber, growing
crops nor grass.

8 D. S. Parivarthamma v. A. Srinivasan, (2003) 4 SCC 705.

9 Sanjeeva Row, Transfer of Property Act, , (Vol. 1, edition, 2012, Universal Law Publishers) 577.
10 Narsimhasetty v. Padmesetty, AIR 1998 Kant 389 (FB).
Meaning and scope of “any right”

In concern with the given principle, it is important to know the meaning and scope of “any right”
of the transferor against the transferee. What all are the rights of the transferor or any other
person claiming under him. Since, it is “any right” that the transferor is debarred to enforce, it
means that all the rights that the transferor is holding against the transferee in respect of the
property has been prohibited to enforce.

Findings of the project are that the transferor does not hold any right in respect of the property
against the transferee in case the transferee is well able to establish that he has performed his task
in furtherance of the contract to transfer. The transferor or any other person claiming under him,
in such a case cannot enforce his rights to get back the property, for which the transferee taken
possession or was already in possession of the property. This, not only means that the transferor
is debarred from enforcing his right in the court of law but any other means outside the court of
law which the Courts cannot upheld. This is the right provided to the transferee to protect his
possession. Debarring of rights does not mean some specific rights, it means any right that the
transferor is having against the transferee in respect of the property taken in possession or
already in possession.

One of the major requirements for the applicability of the doctrine of Part Performance under
Section 53A of the Act is that the application of this doctrine should not affect the rights of the
transferee for consideration without notice of the contract or part performance thereof.11 This is
the main reason why there is no right available to the transferor or any other person claiming
under him against the transferee or any other person claiming under the transferee. Debarring of
the transferor’s rights and the not affecting the rights of the transferee cohere with each other. It
is a protective shield provided to the transferee to protect his property rights against the
transferor, i.e., this can only be used as defence by the transferee.

Meaning and scope of “property”

The rights of the transferor are taken in respect of the kind of “property” dealt within Section
53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This section only talks about immovable property and

11 A.I.R. 1993 Ker. 242, A.I.R. 1995 Bom. 113 (write the name of the cases).
not movable property.12 Immovable property has been defined under three provisions namely,
Section 3(26), General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 2(6), Registration Act, 1908. But in any of
the definitions, the phrase immovable property defined has a vague definition. In general,
immovable property is any estate or interest over land which is a benefit to arise out of land.
Now talking of land, the land in general includes things attached to the Earth or anything
permanently fastened to anything attached to the Earth, but not standing timber, growing crops or
grass as defined in the provisions talked about.

One other important requirement for the application of this doctrine is that there should be a
contract to transfer of an immovable property for a consideration. 13 Thus, two things can be
inferred from the given phrase, that the property transferred should be an immovable property
and that the property should be transferred for a consideration. This implies that the two
qualifications are jointly necessary for the application of the doctrine and where any of the two
qualifications are missing, the doctrine as a whole fails to apply. Application of either the two is
individually not sufficient. Thus, only a certain kind of estates can be brought in into the
category where the doctrine of part performance can be applied. This section specifically
provides for a contract to transfer of property should take place in writing. Section 9 of Transfer
of Property Act, 1882, talks about the oral agreement or contract unless expressly required by
law. Since, Section 53A expressly provides for the contract to transfer or property to be made in
writing, thus, there is no applicability of Section 9 of the Act in this case. Also, one important
requirement of the law is that the contract should be made for a consideration, or else the
doctrine would not be applicable. Considering the two elements or the essentials, it can be said
that the requirement of the two is must. If there is no written contract or no consideration for the
contract or both, the doctrine cannot be applied. This also brings to the point that only in the
estates where there is a requirement of consideration can the doctrine is applied.

Contract to Sale, Lease, Mortgage, Exchange, Easements and Exchange would fall within the
ambit of this provision as there is a consideration to be given by the other party. But in case of
gift, since, there includes no consideration as per Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882. Hence, gift cannot be included within the purview of the doctrine and any person
aggrieved cannot take the defence of this doctrine.

12 D. S. Vakil, Transfer of Property Act, pg. 1019.

13 (1943) 45 Bom. L.R. 874, A.I.R. Bom. 1943. 406, 1956 An. W.R. 830.
Meaning and scope of “Taken or continued in possession”

Also, the right of transferee over the property which is “taken or continued in possession” is
dealt in detail as to their differences and requirements and what right do the transferee hold when
the property is in the possession of him or under any other person claiming under him.

There lies a difference in taken possession and already in possession of the property, that in order
to invoke the doctrine of part performance, the transferee must take the possession of the
property in furtherance of the contract to transfer and if the transferee was already in possession
of the property, then he must do some act which must constitute an act of part performance.

The difference is that in taken possession, the transferee must take possession of the property or
any part thereof, and in the case the transferee is already in possession, the transferee must do
some act in furtherance of the contract and it should be something independent of the mere
retention of the possession of the property.14 In case of the transferee taking possession for the
first time, mere taking possession would be a strong evidence to prove that an act (to take the
possession) was done in furtherance of the contract. In case of transferee already in possession of
the property, the transferee must do some independent act than a mere retention of possession
over the property to evidence part performance and the act done should be in furtherance of the
contract. Only then will the court consider the plea of part performance.15

The acts of part performance, if they preceded the contract, could not be evidence of part
performance, unless performance is a condition precedent without the fulfilment of which the
promise could not be a binding contract.16

Thus, where the transferee has proved his claim over property through part performance, the
transferor’s rights does not stand validated in the manner that the transferor cannot invoke any of
his rights over the property against the transferee. Here, any right of the transferor thus, is related
to the possession taken over by the transferee and his subsequent proving of the same. Any right,
thus, include all the rights that the transferor has over the property. Thus, the transferee cannot be
evicted from the property and has full right to enjoy the property pursuant to the contract made

14 Manohar and Chitaley, Transfer of Property Act, (1882), All India Reporter, pg. 599-600
15 D. S. Parvarthamma v. A. Srinivasan, (2003) 4 SCC 705.
16 Sardar Govindrao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai, AIR 1982 SC 989.
between the parties. Thereby meaning that the rights of the transferee supersede the rights of the
transferor.

But, this does not mean that the transferor does not have any right over the property. Since, the
doctrine of part performance only provides as the transferee with the possession of the property,
it does not confer any entitlement.

EXPLAINATION OF FIVE CASES

1. Srimant Shamrao Suryavanshi and Anr. V. Prahlad Bhairoba Suryavanshi, (2002) 3

SCC 676

FACTS: In the present case, the respondents executed an agreement of sale of an agricultural
land in favour of the appellant. The appellants in pursuance of the agreement got the possession
of the property. After the execution of the agreement, the appellant came to know that the
respondent is negotiating for sale with another respondent for which the appellant filed a suit.
The appellant filed for injunction and an injunction order was passed in favour of the appellant,
yet the respondent sold the land through a registered sale deed. The transferee did not bring any
suit within the limitation period for specific relief.

ISSUE: Whether the appellant can defend his possession over the land by way of Part
Performance under Transfer of Property Act even after the suit for specific performance for a
contract to sale is barred by limitation?

HELD: Even if the limitation period was over, a person can obtain possession of property in part
performance of a contract to sale; the transferee can defend his possession in case filed by the
transferor. but this can only be done is the transferee can well prove that he has done some act in
furtherance of the agreement or the contract or is willing to perform his part of the act in
furtherance of the contract. This was interpreted so as there was not expressly said that the plea
of part performance cannot be taken once the time limit for filing a suit for specific performance
is expired.
In this case, all the requirements of Part Performance were complied with and the transferee was
able to prove that he was willing to perform his part of the contract which fulfils the essential of
performing some act in furtherance of a contract, either in taken possession or in continued
possession of the property.

The court in this case allowed the appeal as it was not disputed that the appellants were willing to
perform their part of the contract.

The court in this case has rightly applied the doctrine. Here the appellant was able to prove the
willingness to perform his part of the contract which is an important essential. Since, along with
this requirement all other requirements were also proved. Hence, it was the right of the appellant
to have the defence of the doctrine which the court provided.

2. Serandaya Pillai v. Sankaralingam Pillai, (1959) 2 Mad LJ 502 (506)

FACTS: A contract was entered into by the plaintiffs and the first and the second defendant to
transfer an immovable property to the first defendant and that the first defendant, in
consideration of the said contract so made for transfer of property, shall marry the second
defendant. The said contract was made orally. The defendants were given the possession of the
said property and the kist to be given was filed in the name of the second defendant for the years
1948 and 1949.

Later the plaintiffs claimed back the said property saying that the gift was invalid as it was
contrary to the Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of the Registration
Act.

ISSUE: Whether the defendants can take the defence of Part Performance under Section 53A of
the Act in the given case and circumstances?

HELD: It was said in the judgment that as per the section, gift, along with sale, lease, mortgage
and exchange require a written contract to take place and that the contract should be for a
consideration. Clearly, there involves a consideration to be given for the property in a contract to
sale, lease, mortgage, exchange and a gift.
The present act makes writing of the contract necessary for the property of value of Rs. 100 or
more as per Section 54 of the Act for the purpose of sale, in case of simple and other mortgages,
a sum of Rs. 100 or above is required to be deposited as per Section 59, in case of lease
extending one year as per Section 107 of the Act, exchanges under Section 118 and under
Section 123 of the Act in case of gifts.

In the present case, the promise to marriage was a consideration for the transfer of property
which was taken as a consideration but since, the there only took place an oral transaction
between the parties and not the contract in writing, thus, it falls within the ambit of Section 9 of
the Act. Thus, it is neither a sale nor a mortgage, lease, exchange or a gift. Hence, the present
case could not be said to fall within the ambit of Section 53A of the Act.

3. Govindrao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai, AIR 1982 SC 989

The mortgagee in this case failed to prove that he did any act in furtherance of the contract or
that the mortgagee was willing to perform his part of the contract either of which is an essential
to prove the case in favour.

The Court held that the mortgagee was not entitled to the benefit under Section 53A and that he
could not possess that property.

FACTS: The original Plaintiff 1, Sardar Govendrao Mahadik (Mortgagor), mortgaged a property
to sole defendant Devi Sahai (Mortgagee) at some rate of interest annually. The mortgage was a
mortgage with possession. The mortgagor on Oct. 5, 1945 served a notice to the defendant to
show the full accounts of the mortgage, of which the mortgagee failed to provide. Subsequently,
some negotiations took place between the two and the property was sold to the mortgagee but the
sale deed for the same could never be registered. On the other hand, the mortgagor sold the
property to the Plaintiff 2, Gyarsilal (Subsequent purchaser) via a registered sale deed.
Thereafter, both the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for the redemption of the
property. The mortgagee at that time was already in possession of the property.

ISSUE: Can the mortgagee gain the benefit of Section 53A of the Act?

HELD: The Court held that the mortgagee was not entitled to the benefit under Section 53A and
that he could not possess that property. This was due to the fact that the mortgagee could not
prove that he has performed any act or is willing to perform any act in furtherance of the
contract. Since, the mortgagee was already in possession of the property, the mere possession of
the property would render any result to the transferee. He needed to prove something
independent of the mere possession of the property and an act done in furtherance of the
contract, as the court shall not take any the mere act of continuing in possession of the property
as evidence enough to provide the defence to the transferee. The mortgagee could not prove that
he did any act in furtherance of the contract, thus he was held not entitled to possession over the
property.

In this case, the judgment set a good precedent over when the transferee can avail the right over
the property. Mere already in possession of the property is not enough as the person may be in
possession of the property pursuant to any other prior encumbrances. The mere possession of the
property is enough and a strong evidences when the mortgagee or the transferee is for the first
time taking the possession of the property and not when he is already in possession of the
property. Thus, an independent act than a mere possession of property was required to proved in
such case. In the present case, the mortgagee failed to do so and thus the decision of the court to
not to provide him with the defence under Section 53A of the Act was justified.

4. S. Parvarthamma v. A. Srinivasan, (2003) 4 SCC 705

FACTS: The appellant in this case was the rentholder of the property and thereafter he entered
into an agreement with the landlord for the purchase of the property, thereby becoming a
prospective buyer of the property. Since, he was already living in that property or was in the
possession of that property, the landlord-tenancy relationship superseded to the prospective
buyer-seller relationship where the appellant became the buyer in possession of that property.
But the disputed fact remained of the agreement to sell made between the original landlord and
the tenant. The original landlord in 1983 sold the land to the respondent via a registered sale deed
and transferred their right, title and interest in the property to the respondent including the suit
premises. Thus, in this case, the respondent here became the subsequent transferee and as per the
law under Section 53A of the Act, nothing in the section shall affect the rights of the transferee
for consideration who has no notice of the contract or the part performance thereof. Thus, the
respondent being the subsequent transferee has the right to protect his property rights under the
section.
The respondent in this case claimed himself to be the owner-landlord of a property seeking
eviction of the appellant which the respondent claimed that he is the tenant of the said property,
and got eviction by the Rent Controller and the judgment was upheld by the High Court.

ISSUE: Whether the appellant can exercise the right under Section 53A of the Act?

HELD: The court in this case dismissed the petition on the following grounds:

1. When the appellant filed a suit for injunction, the suit was dismissed in its entirety. Along
with the suit for injunction dismissed but also the alternative suit filed for specific
performance and monetary relief was also dismissed.
2. Secondly, he could not prove that he was in possession of the property in part
performance of the contract. When a person who is already in possession of the property
enters into a contract to purchase the property, he in order to protect his benefit as the
possessor of that property must show that he has done some act in furtherance of the
contract and that the act must be effective from that day must be consistent with the
contract alleged.

3. Thirdly, with his suit for specific relief getting dismissed, it could not be said that the he
performed or was willing to perform his part of the contract. This is so as the appellant had not
disowned his character as tenant in the suit premises and that there was no evidence or findings
that the appellant was in possession of the property pursuant to the contract to sale. Also the
appellant did not pursue the matter further.

4. Fourthly, the respondent who became the subsequent transferee had no notice of contract
of part performance. As stated in Section 53 of the Act, the rights of the transferee are to be
protected and taken care of. In no case can the transferee’s rights over the property be affected if
he had no prior notice of the contract or the part performance. In this case, the transferee was a
bona fide purchaser and had no notice of the contract to sale of the property.

Thus, the High Court upheld the decision of the Rent Controller and said that the appellant had
no right over the property. The case was held liable to be dismissed and was dismissed by the
High Court.
As per the law, nothing in the Section 53A of the Act shall affect the rights of the transferee, and
and here the Defendant 2 was the subsequent transferee. Hence his rights should be safeguarded.
It has been said that a subsequent transferee can retain the possession of the property if:

1. He has paid the whole amount

2. He has done so in bona fide and had no knowledge of the prior contract.17

Since, both the above requirements were met, the the Court thus was right in saying that the
appellant had no right over the property and safeguarded the rights of the subsequent transferee.

5. Babu Murlidhar v. Soudagar Mohammad Abdul Bashir and Anr, AIR 1970 Kant
203, AIR 1970 Mys 203.

FACTS: In this case, an unregistered agreement of sale was executed by the mortgager, Plaintiff
in favour of the mortgagee, Defendant who was in possession of the property and would become
the owner of the property if his name could be mutated into the mutation register of the
municipality. The mortgager himself, in furtherance of the agreement to sale made an application
for mutation to municipal authorities and mortgagee’s name was registered as the owner of the
property.

ISSUE: Can the Mortgagee defendant avail the defence of Part Performance in this case?

HELD: An act should be done by the transferee in furtherance of the contract to transfer of
property in order to avail the defence of part performance.

Since, the mortgagee himself made an application for the mutation of the documents to the
municipal authority and that the mortgagee’s name was duly registered as the owner of the
property, it was thus an act done in furtherance of the agreement to sale. Since, all the
requirements of the part performance were fulfilled and that it was clear that the mortgagee had
done some act in furtherance of the agreement to sale, thus, the court said that the mortgagee can
avail the defence of part performance.

17Gyaneshwar v. Moongabai, 2006(2) JLJ 170; Veeramalai Vanniar v. Thadikara Vanniar, AIR 1968 Mad
383.
The Court held that this act was sufficient enough to protect the mortgagee under Section 53A of
the transfer of property Act, 1882 as there was some act done in furtherance of the contract to
sale which was sufficient enough to put the mortgagee on the protection.

Thus, the court in this case thus, dismissed the petition.

As per the provision, there must be some act done in furtherance of the contract, only then shall
the defence of part performance can be availed. And, in this case, the mortgagee by filing for the
mutation of the documents in his name had done an act, sufficient enough to prove that the act so
done was in furtherance of the contract. Thus, the court by providing him relief of protecting his
right to possession over the property had right done the justice.

OPINION ON A PROBLEM QUESTION

FACTS: A, a lessor, leases a part of his property to B, the lessee for an amount specifically
mentioned in written in the terms of the contracts. As per the contract to transfer, the lease
amount for the property was to be paid in two instalments. The lessee pays half of the amount as
first installation as consideration to the lessor and promised to pay rest of the amount as second
installation in the subsequent months to come after when the transferee gets the possession of the
property. The lessor, later on in not receiving the whole amount in the next month negotiated to
sell the property to a third party, C who already knew of the transaction previously taken
between A and B. B, at the time of the sale of the property had the possession over the property.
A and C subsequently filed a suit against B for eviction of the property.

ISSUE: Can B take the plea of part performance in this case?

JUDGMENT: A can invoke right of part performance as he has done some act in furtherance of
the contract to obtain the leased property. Though the act was done prior to the possession over
the property, but since, the act was duly done in furtherance of the contract and forms a part of
the contract of lease as the money paid was pursuant to the contract made between the parties
and subsequent thereto, B got the possession over the property. Since, an independent act than
mere possession of the property is required to be made and that the act should be in furtherance
of the contract. The acts of part performance, if they preceded the contract, could not be evidence
of part performance, unless performance is a condition precedent without the fulfilment of which
the promise could not be a binding contract.18

Since, the act done by B preceded the contract, but was done as a condition precedent to the
contract, thus, making the contract binding. Thus, the transferee in this case has a right to possess
the property and the transferor in such a case cannot hamper the right of the transferee.

And the right of the lessor to sell the property to C or infact any other right which the lessor held
before leasing out the property is barred as per the statutory provision. It is the statutory right of
the lessee to defend his possession over the property.

Also, the fact that the agreement to lease was made in writing and also since the agreement to
lease is made in consideration of the property to be leased out, fulfilling both conditions required
proving that a lease can be regarded in this provision. Thus, a lease would fall within the purview
of this section and a person can get a defence under this section for a leased out property. Thus,
for the reasons discussed above, the transferor, the lessor cannot impose any right against the
transferee. Also, had C did not know of the earlier transaction that took place between A and B,
and had made the payment for the property, C would have become the bona fide purchaser and a
subsequent transferee and in such a case, the rights of C as a subsequent transferee would have
prevailed over the rights of B.

18 Sardar Govindrao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai, AIR 1982 SC 989.