section 53A of TP act
naveenraj jain
(Querist) 13 June 2014
This query is : Resolved
Sirs
A case in which an agreement holder being as defendant is protected under sec53A of TP act by both the civil court and high court.
The defendant has been in possession presently but do not hold sale deed cos of the case.
Now how to help the defendant get a sale deed or it is not necessary as the court had ruled that he is in possession and doesn't need sale deed
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 14 June 2014
Sale deed is the only document (in this case/circumstances)which grants title of the property. Therefore,agreement to sell and possession do not confer ownership rights to the person-in-possession.
The defendant in your case, should file a counter claim for specific performance seeking the relief of getting the document of Sale Deed executed in his favour.
naveenraj jain
(Querist) 14 June 2014
Thanks sir. In this case the defendant had filed IA for specific performance but was rejected by civilcourt. On appeal high court heard and ordered to workout any rights in this case itself ( partition suit) and eventually lower court judgment was in defendant favor. Defendant Advocate advises when possession title is declared by all the three court ( lower, high and supreme) there is no necessary to seek title of ownership again.
The problem now concerned is for seeking changes in govt records of the property the govt officials are asking for registered sale deed.
Even to sell Advocate says bring the buyer to me and I'll explain.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 14 June 2014
Try to mutate his name in the Municipal records on the basis of court decision. If it is done then it is good else you can file Writ petition.
If all the courts have hold you rightful owner of the property then mutation of the same should complete the chain.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 14 June 2014
agree with Mr burman
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 14 June 2014
Agree with the expert devajyoti Barman ji.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate 
(Expert) 14 June 2014
I too agree with the opinion of expert Mr. Barman on this issue. Mutation of records will be the solution.
naveenraj jain
(Querist) 14 June 2014
Thanks a million. Indeed The application was made to change the mutation entry to the tahsildar. In turn tahsildar asked the vendors to file objections n converted into a case. This case was decided to make necessary changes in mutation.Before entries could pass again a appeal is filed before AC for past two years now. My point is when all courts have decided on this why it is still being heard by the revenue department.
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 14 June 2014
When there is no sale deed in the name of defendant the how come he got the possession? Is there any agreement? If there is any agreement, the date of agreement is very important.
naveenraj jain
(Querist) 14 June 2014
Raju sir. Sale agreement is executed not registered. Case was filed before sale could be registered by vendors
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 14 June 2014
As the issue of entry of mutation solely rests with the revenue courts, you cannot challenge their jurisdiction for that purpose. Merely accepting your possession over the suit property by way of agreement to sale (even though you might have paid the full consideration) so not vest ownership rights in you and thus you are required to get entered mutation in your name from the revenue authorities and the process is already going on thereto.
The judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme cour is binding even for the revenue court.
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 15 June 2014
Wise views of Learned Mr. Rajkumar Makkad.
I agree with him.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 15 June 2014
Agreed with the views of expert Mr. Raj Kumar Makkad on the issue. Under the provisions of section 53A the transferee is entitled to resist any attempt on the part of the transferor to disturb transferee’s lawful possession under the contract of sale and his position either as a plaintiff or as a defendant should make no difference.
Now the defendant has a court order in his favor, the revenue court is obliged by the apex court's order and bound to obey.
naveenraj jain
(Querist) 16 June 2014
Thank you rajkumarji and all the respected experts
