Unregistered agreement for open land cannot protect possession of constructed rooms under Section 53A.

The appellants (legal heirs of deceased Omkar) sought a declaration of ownership and possession of the "suit premises" (two rooms out of four constructed on a 1500 sq. ft. plot).

The plot was allotted to Omkar as a government employee, and he constructed the rooms using a loan repaid in 1994.

The appellants alleged that the respondent (a relative) was permitted to reside there temporarily due to domestic issues but refused to vacate, claiming he purchased 350 sq. ft. of the open plot via an agreement for sale dated November 19, 1992, for Rs. 22,000/- and constructed the rooms at his own cost.

The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellants, but the first appellate court reversed it, granting the respondent protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Whether the agreement to sale (Exh. 46) allegedly executed by the husband of appellant no. 1 can be considered valid in the absence of the respondent’s (purchaser's) signature?

Whether the respondent can claim any right in the suit property on the basis of document Exh. 46 which is not signed by him?

The Court applied Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which provides for the doctrine of part performance, requiring a written contract signed by the transferor and evidence that the transferee took possession of the specific property in furtherance of that contract.

It relied on Nathulal v. Phoolchand for the essential conditions of Section 53A.

Suraj Lamp and Industries (2) v. State of Haryana, which established that an agreement for sale is not a conveyance and does not create title.

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act regarding the necessity of registered instruments for the sale of immovable property.

Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, regarding the inadmissibility of unregistered documents for conveying title.

The Court observed that while the absence of the purchaser's signature on a vendor-signed agreement for sale (Exh. 46) does not automatically invalidate the execution of the document, it does not confer title.

Critically, the Court found that the agreement pertained only to "open land," whereas the suit concerned "constructed rooms".

The respondent failed to provide cogent evidence that he constructed the rooms; conversely, the appellants proved Omkar took and repaid a construction loan.

Since the respondent’s alleged contract only covered land, he could not claim part performance (possession) of the rooms under Section 53A.

The Court held that the first appellate court ignored the fact that the respondent took no steps to specifically perform the contract and failed to prove the contents of the document conferred a right to the constructed area.

The Court set aside the first appellate court's judgment and restored the trial court's decree with modifications.

It held that the respondent was a permissive user with no right to retain possession.

The respondent was ordered to deliver vacant possession to the appellants within two months, and an inquiry into mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 was directed.