Bar of limitation for specific performance does not extinguish the defense of part performance under Section 53A.

The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land, claiming his father had permitted the defendant to cultivate it in 1980 on the condition of returning it upon demand

The defendant contested, asserting that the plaintiff’s father had sold the land to him for ₹250/- and that the plaintiff later executed a written agreement to sell on 08.01.1992 for ₹3,600/-, which was fully paid

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant failed to prove adverse possession and could not benefit from Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act because a suit for specific performance was barred by limitation

The Appellate Court reversed this, finding the agreement to sell (Ext. DW3/A) duly proved

The plaintiff appealed to the High Court

1. Whether the protection of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was properly pleaded and proved by the defendant

2. Whether the bar of limitation for filing a suit for specific performance prevents a defendant from taking the plea of part performance under Section 53A

3. Whether the plaintiff, as the recorded owner, is entitled to a decree of possession despite the existence of an agreement to sell

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which provides the equitable doctrine of part performance as a statutory defense for a transferee in possession under a written contract

The Supreme Court precedent in Vasanthi v. Venugopal (2017) regarding the prerequisites for part performance

Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi v. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (2002), which established that the law of limitation bars a remedy (suit) but does not extinguish a defense used to protect possession

The principle from Chander Kanta v. Durga Dutt (2006) that once full consideration is paid, the requirement of "readiness and willingness" is deemed satisfied

The High Court found that the agreement to sell dated 08.01.1992 (Ext. DW3/A) was validly executed and signed by the plaintiff, as supported by the testimonies of the document writer (DW3) and marginal witnesses (DW4, PW3)

The court determined that all prerequisites for Section 53A were met: there was a written contract for consideration, the defendant was in possession in furtherance of that contract, and the defendant had performed his part by paying the full consideration of ₹3,600/-

The court corrected the Trial Court’s legal error, clarifying that even if a suit for specific performance is time-barred, the transferee can still use Section 53A as a "shield" to defend their possession against the transferor

The court rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on adverse possession precedents, noting the defense was based on part performance

The plaintiff is precluded from seeking possession of the suit land despite holding the legal title. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the First Appellate Court was upheld