Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a suit for possession of agricultural land filed by the original owner against a defendant who had been placed in possession under an unregistered agreement of sale. The agreement was dated 18.04.2006, with a total sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000, out of which Rs.3,00,000 had been paid. The property fell within the benefit zone of the Jeegaon Resettlement Project under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons (Rehabilitation) Act, 1999, which imposed a prohibition on sale under Section 12 of that Act. The sale deed could not be executed. The plaintiff issued legal notices in 2008 demanding execution, and upon failure, filed Regular Civil Suit No.120/2008 for possession based on title. The defendant resisted, claiming protection of possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, asserting readiness and willingness to perform, and contending that the bar on alienation under the 1999 Act prevented execution. The defendant also alleged that she had gone to the Sub-Registrar’s office on 17.10.2006 but the plaintiff did not appear. The trial court decreed the suit for possession, holding that the unregistered agreement could not invoke Section 53A, and further that the agreement was unenforceable for want of registration, and that the defendant was not ready and willing. The First Appellate Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal under Section 96 CPC, affirming that the unregistered agreement did not afford protection under Section 53A, and that Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act, 1908, introduced with effect from 24.09.2001, expressly provides that an unregistered agreement of sale shall have no effect for the purposes of Section 53A. In the second appeal, three questions of law were framed regarding the sustainability of the lower court’s findings on the duration of the ban, readiness and willingness, and whether the sale deed was required to be executed within the stipulated period. However, the High Court held that these questions were not substantial because, even if answered in favour of the appellant, the final outcome would remain unchanged: the plaintiff, as undisputed owner, would still be entitled to possession, and the unregistered agreement could never confer protection under Section 53A. The court elaborated that a substantial question of law is one that would overturn the decree, distinguishing it from a mere question of law, and referred to precedents on Section 100 CPC and the re‑evaluation of substantial questions at the final hearing under Section 100(5) CPC. Two applications for additional evidence filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to prove the continuing prohibition under the 1999 Act were rejected as irrelevant, since even if allowed, they would not alter the decree for possession. The second appeal was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The court noted that the appellant had filed a separate suit for specific performance, which was to be decided on its own merits.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Transfer of Property - Protection of Possession under Section 53A - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Section 53A); Registration Act, 1908 (Section 17(1-A)) - The agreement of sale dated 18.04.2006 was unregistered. Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act, 1908, introduced w.e.f. 24.09.2001, provides that an unregistered agreement of sale shall not have any effect for the purposes of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendant could not claim protection of possession under Section 53A even if ready and willing to perform. Held that the suit for possession based on title was rightly decreed. (Paras 8-9) B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 100) - A question of law is substantial if its answer would overturn the decree; otherwise, it is merely a question of law. The questions framed in the appeal, even if answered in appellant’s favour, would not change the outcome of the suit for possession. Held that the questions are not substantial and the appeal must be dismissed. Referred to Ramratan Pandurang Sunwani v. Maya Ramratan Sunwani, (2010) 4 Mh.L.J. 154 and Chandrabhan through L.Rs. v. Saraswati, (2022) 20 SCC 199. (Paras 10-11) C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Scope of Section 100(5) CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 100(5)) - At the hearing of a second appeal, the respondent can argue that the question of law formulated is not involved, and the court may hold that the substantial question framed at admission does not arise, provided reasons are recorded. Relied on Kiccha Sugar Company Ltd. v. Roofrite Private Limited, (2009) 16 SCC 280 and K.K. Kannan through L.Rs. v. Koolivathukkal Karikkan Mandi, (2010) 2 SCC 239. Held that the questions framed are not substantial and the appeal is dismissed. (Paras 11-13) D) Evidence - Additional Evidence in Appeal - Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order 41 Rule 27) - Applications for permission to lead additional evidence to show continuing prohibition under Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Act were rejected because even if allowed, such evidence would not alter the final outcome of the suit, making the documents irrelevant for adjudication. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an unregistered agreement of sale can confer protection of possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act? Whether the questions framed in the second appeal are substantial questions of law?
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed. The concurrent decrees for possession passed against the appellant/original defendant are upheld. The Court held that the unregistered agreement of sale cannot invoke protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and that the questions of law formulated are not substantial as their answer would not change the outcome. Applications for additional evidence are rejected. No costs. It was noted that the appellant has filed a suit for specific performance, which shall be decided on its own merits.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 17(1-A) of Registration Act
- 1908 renders unregistered agreement of sale ineffective for purposes of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act
- Substantial question of law is one which
- if answered in appellant's favour
- would overturn the decree
- Section 100(5) CPC allows court to re-evaluate substantial question at final hearing
- A question of law that does not affect the final outcome is not substantial
