Section 53A protection requires possession to be delivered under the registered instrument.

The defendants owned the suit property and entered into a registered Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff-builder.

The plaintiff alleged that possession was delivered, that it obtained a BBMP sanctioned plan and began construction, and that the defendants interfered.

The defendants denied delivering possession, relied on the JDA’s clause excluding delivery of possession for the purposes of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA), and stated that they had terminated the arrangement.

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction, finding that possession and construction expenditure had not been proved and that the JDA had been terminated. The plaintiff appealed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC. The judgment’s opening paragraph identifies the decree date as 18 June 2021, while the appeal caption and introductory material refer to 18 June 2022.

1. Whether the plaintiff proved possession of the suit property and construction under the JDA dated 31 December 2015.

2. Whether the plaintiff proved interference by the defendants contrary to the JDA.

3. Whether the plaintiff could claim the benefit of Section 53A TPA.

4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunction against the defendants, and whether the trial court’s decree required appellate interference.

Section 53A TPA protects a transferee in part performance only where the statutory requirements are met; the court stated that, in this case, the instrument had to be registered and possession had to be taken by virtue of that instrument.

A plaintiff seeking an injunction on the basis of a development or sale arrangement must establish the possession on which the injunction claim depends. Relying on Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi, Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022, decided on 23 September 2022, the court stated that a plaintiff cannot use a suit for injunction to obtain indirectly relief that would require seeking the substantive relief of specific performance.

It also relied on Venkatesh v. Barikara Eranna, MSA No. 100006 of 2023, for the proposition that a mere agreement of sale does not, in the circumstances addressed there, support a suit for injunction alone.

The JDA permitted the plaintiff to undertake construction activities but expressly stated that it did not amount to delivery of possession for Section 53A purposes. The court therefore found that permission to enter and carry out work did not establish possession, particularly where the plaintiff had not produced the alleged BBMP sanctioned plan or satisfactory evidence of construction expenditure.

It also relied on the termination notice and reply, and on the dishonoured cheques, in concluding that the plaintiff had not established that the JDA had been acted upon or that it remained an adequate basis for the claimed injunction.

Since possession was not proved, the plaintiff could not obtain the protection sought under Section 53A or a permanent injunction; the court further considered that the plaintiff had not sought specific performance of the underlying arrangement.

It dismissed the Regular First Appeal.