Possessory Title Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Merits Protection Despite Expiry of Agreement Period

The plaintiff/appellant entered into a registered agreement to sell with the defendants on 02.05.2014 for land measuring 34,600 Sq.M., asserting that the entire consideration of ₹15,21,37,274/- was paid and possession was delivered

Subsequent sale deeds were executed for portions of the land in 2015, adjusting earnest money from the original agreement

The defendants contended the agreement expired on 10.03.2015 and relied on an unregistered compromise dated 18.07.2022 to argue that the plaintiff was not in possession

The Trial Court rejected the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction (6C-2) on 05.09.2025, leading to this appeal

1. Whether a prospective purchaser under a registered agreement to sell, having performed their part of the contract and being in possession, is entitled to protect that possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

2. Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing temporary injunction based on an unregistered compromise and the expiration of the agreement's initial validity period

The court applied Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which protects the possessory title of a transferee who has performed his part of a written contract even if the transfer is incomplete

It relied on Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi (2023), establishing that such possessory rights cannot be invaded by the transferor

Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah v. Anton Elis Farel (2006), which distinguishes between the limitation for specific performance and the right to protect possession via injunction

The court also noted Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the commencement of limitation from the date performance is refused

The Court observed that the defendants admitted to executing a registered agreement to sell "with possession" and receiving consideration

Crucially, the defendants failed to produce any registered document showing how possession was legally re-transferred from the plaintiff back to them

The Court dismissed the defendants' reliance on the unregistered compromise dated 18.07.2022, noting it could not override the possessory rights established by the registered 2014 agreement

Regarding limitation, the Court held that the continuation of sale deed executions after the "expiry date" of 10.03.2015 suggested an implicit extension of the agreement’s terms

Therefore, at the prima facie stage, the plaintiff’s physical possession remained undisturbed and legally protected under the doctrine of part-performance

The defendants/respondents are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and from changing the nature of the property during the suit's pendency; The impleadment application of the third party was disposed of with liberty to approach the Trial Court