DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
INTRODUCTION
Property is one of the most fundamental elements of the socio-economic life of an individual. Juridically, property can be said to be a bundle of rights in a thing or a land. However, the word has gradually been given a wider meaning. Economic significance of the property, therefore, rests more on its dispositions. Property law has therefore become an important branch of civil law. The Transfer of Property Act, !!" deals with the transfer of immoveable property intervivos #although some provisions deal with the transfer of moveable as well as immovable property$. %efore this enactment, the transfers of immovable property were mostly governed by English e&uitable principles as applies by Anglo-'ndian (ourts. The )doctrine of part-performance* is one of the e&uitable doctrines applied by these (ourts. 'n this pro+ect, the various aspects of doctrine of part-performance have been analyed in detail. DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
octrine of part performance is an e&uitable doctrine. 't is also nown as )e&uity of part performance*. /nder this doctrine, if a person has taen possession of an immovable property on the basis of contract of sale and has either performed or, is willing to perform his part of contract then, he would not be e+ected from the property on the ground the sale was unregistered and the legal title had not been transferred to him. 0or instance, there is a contract for the sale of a piece of land between A and %. the contract is in writing, stamped, attested and duly e1ecuted but not registered by A, who is the seller. %, who is the pu rchaser has performed, or is willing to perform his part of contract i.e. has paid the price or is willing to do the same. 2n basis of such contract % taes possession possession of the land. 3ow A sells sells the land to ( through through a registered registered deed. ( having the legal title of the land, attempts to e+ect %. at this stage, since % has no legal title, law may not protect his possession, but e&uity shell help him from getting dispossessed. The doctrine of part performance is, therefore, based on the ma1im4 Equity ma1im4 Equity looks on that as done which ought to have been done. done. That is to say, e&uity treats the sub+ect-matter of a contract as to its effects in the same manner as if the Act contemplated in the contract had been fully e1ecuted, from the moment the agreem agreement ent has been been made, made, though though all the legal legal formal formaliti ities es of the contract contract have not been been completed.
1|Page
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
HISTORY OF THE SECTION
5ection 67A of the Transfer of Property Act provides that 89here any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taen possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that :;..< where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefore by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any other person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taen or continued in possession, other than the rights e1pressly provided by the terms of the contract4 Provided that nothing in this 5ection shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof.= The 5ection has been described by the Privy (ouncil", and by the 5upreme (ourt7, as partial importation of the English of doctrine of part performance. %y virtue of this 5ection part
1 The words )the contract, though re&uired to be registered, has not been registered or* has been omitted by 5ection > of the ?egistration ?egistration and 2ther ?elated ?elated @aws Amendment Amendment Act Act ">> #Act no. ! of ">>$ ">>$ with effect from " 5eptember, ">>.
2 Bian Pir %u1 v. 5ardar Bahomed Tahar, A'? C7 P( "76D ABA 5ultan and 2rs. v. 5eydu ohra %eevi, A'? CC> Fer !G.
3 Banelal Banushbahi v. Honnus+i Jamshed+i, A'? C6> 5( D (haliagulla ?amchandrayya v. %oppana 5atyanarayana, A'? A'? CG 5( !D 5ee also 3athu @al v. Phoolchand, :C>< " 5(? !6D 5ardar Iovindrao Bahadi anr. v. evi 5ahai and ors., A'? C!" 5( C!C.
2|Page
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
performance does not give rise to an e&uity, e&u ity, as in England, but to a statutory right. This right is more restricted than the English e&uity in two respects4 #$ there must be a written contractD and #"$ it is only available as a defence.6 5o far as 'ndia is concerned, the section creates rights which were not in e1istence before the enactment was passed.G These rights to retain possession rest on the e1press provisions of the statute. 't has been held that the doctrine of part performance is not applicable to the 5tate of Jammu and Fashmir. 5ection 67A was first enacted in C"C by the Transfer of Property #Amendment$ Act C"C, and imports into 'ndia a modified form of e&uity of part-performance as developed in England in Baddison!. The enactment of the section sets at rest the considerable uncertainty prevailing in 'ndian law as can be seen by three decisions of the Privy (ouncil.C ?ecently, para of 5ection 67A has been amended by 5ection > of the ?egistration and 2ther ?elated @aws #Amendment$ Act ">> #Act ! of ">>$ whereby the words )the contract, though re&uired to be registered, or* has been omitted.> SCOPE OF THE SECTION
The following postulates are sine &ua non for basing a claim on 5ection 67 A of the Transfer of Property Act4
4 Amrao v. %aburao, #C6>$ '@? 3ag "6. 5ee Hamida v. 5mt Humer and ors., A'? CC" All 7G. 5 /.3.5harma v. Puttegowda and anr ., A'? C!G Fant. CC. 6 Fripa ?am v. %ishen as, A'? C @ah C. 7 5waran Fumar Jain v. ev utt Baha+an and ors., A'? CC JF 77. 8 #!!7$ ! App (as G. 9 Bahomed Busa v. Aghore Fumar Ianguli, #C$ '@? " (al !>D Ariff v. Jadunath , Jadunath , A'? A'? C7 P( CD Bian Pir %u1 supra %u1 supra note ".
10 I.(.%HA?/FA, B/@@A THE T?A350E? 20 P?2PE?TK A(T #> th ed @e1is 3e1is %utterworths 9adhwa 3agpur ">>G$.
3|Page
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
a$ There must must be a contract contract to transfe transferr for considerat consideration ion any immoveabl immoveablee property. property. b$ The contract must be in writing, signed by the transferor, or by someone on his behalf. c$ The The writ writin ing g must must be in such words words from which which the term termss neces necessa sary ry to const constru ruee the the transfer can be ascertained. d$ The transferee transferee must must in part performance performance of the the contract tae tae possession possession of the the property, property, or of any part thereof. e$ The transfer transferee ee must have done some act act in furthera furtherance nce of the the contract. contract. f$ The transfere transfereee must have have performed performed or be willing willing to to perform perform his part part of the contract contract.. 5o far as applicability of 5ection 67A is concerned, what is to be seen is that the 5ection provides for a shield of protection to the proposed transferee to remain in possession against the original owner who has agreed to sell to the transferee to remain in possession against the original owner, who has agreed to sell to the transferee, if the proposed transferee satisfies the other conditions of 5ection 67A." Proposed transferor remains full owner of the lands till they are legally conveyed by a sale deed to the proposed transferees.7 5uch a right to protect possession against the vendor cannot be pressed in service against a third party lie a state when it sees to enforce the provisions of the Act against the tenure-holder . 'n absence of the pleadings and evidence of all the essential conditions, maing out a defence of part performance to protect possession claimed by the plaintiff, plaintiff, would not be attracted.6 The plea under 5ection 67 A of the TP Act raises a mi1ed &uestion of law and fact, and therefore, cannot be permitted to be urged for the first time time at the stage of second appeal.G
3athulal supra note 7D 5hrimat 5ha mrao 5uryavanshi v. Prahlad %hairoba 5uryavanshi, A'? ">>" 5( 11 3athulal supra CG>D ?ambhao 3amdeo Ia+re v. 3arayan %apu+i hotra, #">>$ ! 5(( GD ?am ?a m Fumar Agarwal v. Thawar as, #CCC$ 5(( 7>7D Jacobs Private @imited v. Thomas Thomas Jacob, A'? CC6 Fer "C. 5ee also amodaran v. 5heharan, A'? CC7 Fer "", B. Bariappa v. A.F. 5athyanarayan 5hetty, A'? C! Fant 6!. supra note >. 12 supra note
13 Id . istrict Judge, A'? CC 5( 67. 14 5tate of /ttar Pradesh v. istrict Fishore , A'? CCC BP >. 15 Hailal v. Jugal Fishore ,
4|Page
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
IS THE SECTION RETROSPECTIVE?
There is a sharp cleavage of +udicial opinion on this &uestion. The Badras High (ourt has consistently held that the 5ection has no retrospective operation and does not apply to transfers effected prior to st April, C7>. The (alcutta High (ourt has said that the section applies retrospectively, e1cept that the 5ection would not apply to such transactions which were the sub+ect matter of pending actions on st April, C7>.! This is the present view also of Patna High (ourt though there are earlier decisions of the (ourt to the contrary. The Allahabad High (ourt also holds that 5ection 67A applies to transactions that too place prior st April, C7> provided the suit is brought after that date.C The %ombay High (ourt agrees with this view. The present view of all the High (ourts is that 5ection 67A does not affect any proceeding commenced before the Amending Amending Act of C"C."> ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR THE APPLICATION OF THIS SECTION
Analysis of the provisions of 5ection 67A maes it clear that following essential conditions are necessary for its application4 a$ There There is a contra contract ct for the transfer transfer of an immovab immovable le property property.. The contract contract must be written and it must be for the transfer of an immovable property for consideration. " Also, the contract must be valid in all respects.
Agarwal supra note D 5ham @al v. Bathi , Bathi , A'? ">>" HP GG . GG . 16 ?am Fumar Agarwal supra
17 Fanaamma v. Frishnamma, #C7$ B@J 776#0.%.$, Bahalashmi v. Lenatareddi, A'? C Bad 66G.
18 Badan Bohan v. 5rinivas Prasad, A'? C7 Pat 77. 19 Ia+dhar v. %achan, A'? C7 All G!. 20 LE?A P. 5A?TH', I.(.L. 5/%%A ?A2*5 @A9 20 T?A350E? 20 P?2PE?TK #EA5EBE3T5, T?/5T A3 9'@@5$ GC #?eprint ed Alt Publications Hyderabad ">>6$. Hamida supra note . 21 Hamida supra
5|Page
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
b$ The second essential is that the transferee has taen the possession of the property or continues possession in part-performance of the contract or, has done some act in the furtherance of the contract."" c$ 9hen 9hen a person person claims claims protec protectio tion n of his posses possessio sion n over a land land under under 5ection 5ection 67A, his own conduct must be e&uitable and +ust. That is the transferee has either performed his part of contract or is willing to perform the same. 9hen the above mentioned conditions are fulfilled, the transferee can defend his continuance of possession over the property. 'n other words, if these re&uirements are fulfilled, the transferee is entitled to claim, under this 5ection, that he should not be dispossessed or evicted from the property. ACT OF PART PERFORMANCE
?epairs and improvements affected under a mortgage cannot be an act of part performance under a subse&uent sale, as it is an act preliminary to a sale. "7 The mere retention by a tenant", or a mortgagee in possession"6, of possession after the e1piry of the original lease or mortgage is not an act of part performance. performance. 5imilarly 5imilarly possessio possession n obtained obtained subse&uent to an agreement, and not refe refera rabl blee to it is not not an act act of part part perf perform ormanc ance. e."G 9here 9here howeve howeverr the tenant tenant remains remains in possession after an e1piry of old lease, and pays reduced rent, it is an act of part performance of the renewal of the lease at a reduced rent. Also, where a person puts up a house soon after being put in possession under an unregistered contract of sale, it amounts to an act of part performance.
22 r.5'? HA?' 5'3IH I2/?, (2BBE3TA?K 23 T?A350E? 20 P?2PE?TK A(T G! #" ed Lol elhi @aw House ">>$.
23 Fua+i v. %asantilal, A'? C66 Badh %h C7. 24 %hagwandas v. 5ura+mal, A'? CG BP "7. 25 Pannalal v. @abhchand, A'? C66 Badh %h CC. 26 Ban+ural Ho&ue v. Bewa+an %ibi, A'? C6G (al 76>. 6|Page
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
However, this 5ection does not apply when a mortgage in possession continues in possession under an oral sale." 9here a lessee retained possession after the e1piry of the lease, under a written agreement to purchase the property for which he had paid consideration, it was held to be an act of part performance."! 0or a tenant continuing in possession of an immovable property after a contract of transfer, written and signed by the landlord, to get the protection under 5ection 67A, it is necessary to show that he continues in possession in pursuance of the contract. Bere continuance in possession does not satisfy the re&uirement of the 5ection. "C Also, the cat in &uestion must be referable to the contract alleged to have been partly performed. performed.7> WHO IS ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF PART PERFORMANCE
The words of the 5ection do not warrant a conclusion that the plaintiff as such is necessarily debarred from the benefit of this 5ection. 7 The true position as e1plained by Justice 5ubba ?ao, in a case decided b y Andhra Pradesh High (ourt is4 “whether the transferee transferee occupies the position of a plaintiff or a defendant, defendant, he can resist the transferor’s claim against the property. Conversely, whether the transferor is the plaintiff or the defendant, he cannot enforce his rights in respect of the property against the transferee. he utility of the !ection or the rights conferred there under should not be made to depend upon the maneuvering for positions in the court of law, otherwise a powerful transferor can always defeat the statutory provisions of the !ection by dispossessing the transferee by force and compelling him to go to the court as plaintiff. "oubtless, the right conveyed under the !ection can be relied upon only as a shield and not as a sword but the protection is available to the transferee both as a plaintiff and as a defendant so long as he uses it as a shield.#
%$27 Ba 5hwe Fin v. Fa Hee, A'? C" ?ang 7!. 28 Annamalai Ioundan v. Lenataswami 3aidu, A'? C6C Bad 76. Aghor Fumar %asu , %asu , A'? A'? C!C Iau 7C. 29 5unil Fumar 5arar v. Aghor
30 ?anchhoddas (hhaganlal v. eva+i 5updu, A'? C 5( 6. Badhusudan, A'? C6G 2ri 6!. 31 ?adhanath 5wain v. Badhusudan,
32 Achayya v. Lenata 5ubba ?ao, A'? C6 AP !6D Baruti v. Frishna, A'? CG %om 7. 7|Page
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
9hether the above statement was a correct statement of the law, was ept open by the 5upreme (ourt.77
TRANSFEROR OR ANY PERSON CLAIMING UNDER HIM
The person claiming under a transferor, referred to in this section, is a person who claims under a title derived subse&uently to the transfer, and not anterior to it.7 The test for determining whether these words apply to Hindu reversioner is, whether the acts of the deceased widow affecting the property bind the reversioner. 'f her acts bind the property, they must bind the reversioner in the same manner, and to the same e1tent as the acts of absolute owner would bind his heir. The reversioner may not be her heir, but is certainly her successor, and is bound by her acts which lawfully affect the property, and to the e1tent he is so bound, he becomes a person claiming under her.76 TRANSFERS AND AGREEMENTS COVERED BY THIS SECTION
This This 5ectio 5ection n applies applies to leases leases and agreem agreement entss to lease. lease.7G 9here an agreement to lease is evidenced by correspondence, the lessee is put in possession, and there has been acceptance of rent by the lessor for several years, the 5upreme (ourt held that section was applicable, and the lessee could defend the suit for e+ectment.7 Also, a lease of property being distinct from transfer of property, 5ection 67A is not applicable. applicable.7!
33 elhi Botor (o. v. %asurar, A'? CG! 5( C. 34 Hemra+ v. ?ustom+i, A'? C67 5( 6>7. 35 %alram Jairam v. Fewalram, A'? C> 3ag 7CGD ?anchod v. ipru, A'? C6 %om 67. 36 Banelal Bansuhbhai, supra Bansuhbhai, supra note note 7. 37 Id. 38 5hula Balhotra v. Lyasa %an @td., #CC!$ 6 ?J 6>. 8|Page
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
't also applies to usufructuary mortgages and mortgages with possession.7C 't however does not apply to a family agreement which does not involve a transfer of property >, or to a partition which is not transfer at all. Again, whether the 5ection applies to a transfer of partial interest in property is doubtful. The doctrine of part performance cannot apply to moveable property. property." RIGHT EXPRESSELY PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACT
The transferor may enforce a right which is e1 pressly provided by the contract. 5o, if the contract were an agreement of lease not provable for the want of registration, the lessee could resist a demand for rent. 2f he did so, he will be disentitled to the benefit of the 5ection as not being willing to perform his part of the contract. so also where a lessee has already put in possession of certain premises in part performance of an unregistered lease, the lessor can enforce the term of the lease entitling him to re-enter, if there default in pa yment of si1 months* rent.7 5imilarly, if the unregistered lease was only for a term, there would be no right to continue in possession after the e1piry of the term. NATURE NATURE OF RIGHT RI GHT AVAILABLE ONLY AS A DEFENCE
39 Ayyan Funhi v. Frishna, A'? C6> Tr(och !D ?ami ?eddi v. Lenat ?eddi, A'? CG7 AP !C. 40 Jileba v. Barmersa, A'? C6> All >>. , A'? C6 Bad "7. 41 ?asharetayya v. 5arasamma , A'?
42 %habhi utt v. ?amlalbyamal, A'? C7 ?ang. 7>7. 43 Buralidhar v. Tara ye, A'? C67 (al 7C. assi, #C6C$ G7 (al 93 676. 44 ?adha (haran as v. Pranbati assi,
9|Page
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
The Privy (ouncil in &robodh in &robodh 'umar "as v. v. "antmara ea ea Co. Co.6has held that the right conferred by 5ection 67A is a right available to the defendant to protect p rotect his possession. The 5ection is so framed so as to impose statutory bar on the transferD it confers no active title to the transferee. The above law laid down has been followed with approval approval by the 5upreme 5upreme (ourt in the case of echnicians echnicians !tudio &vt. (td. v. (eela )hosh. )hosh.G 't has been held that 5ection 67A is only a partial importation in the statute law of 'ndia of the English doctrine of part performance. Thus, a person who is lead into possession on the strength of a void lease does not ac&uire any interest in the property, but gets under 5ection 67A only a right to defend his possession. 't can be used only as a defence. 0ollowing Probodh Fumar, the 5upreme (ourt again in "elhi in "elhi *otor Company v. +..-asrurkar / has held that 5ection 67A is only available as defence to the lessee, and not as confirming a right as the basis of which the lessee can claim rights against the lessor. This 5ection does not confer title on the defendant in possessionCD and he cannot maintain a suit on title.6> The 5upreme (ourt has approved this principle.6 Thus it can be concluded that this section does not create a title in the defendant but merely acts as a bar to the plaintiff in asserting his title. 't is limited to the cases where the transferee has taen possession, and against whom the transferor is debarred from enforcing any right, other than that mentioned in the contract.
45 A'? C> P( . 46 A'? C 5( 7". 47 ?am Iopal ?eddy v. Additional (ustodian, Evacuee Property, A'? CGG 5( 7!. 48 A'? CG! 5( C. 49 Fuchwar @ime 5tone (o. v. 5ecretary of 5tate, A'? C7G Pat 7". @td., A'? C P( "!. 50 5.3.%aner+ee v. Fuchwar @ime 5tone (o. @td. supra note 51 supra note
10 | P a g e
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
However, it is only in a case of suit for specific performance that the part performance assists plaintiff. A transferee who has come into the possession of the property in part performance of a written agreement can continue in possession, if he is ready and willing of perform his part of agreement. 'n such a case, it is not necessary that the transferee should have filed a suit for specific performance within the limitation period prescribed for a suit for specific performance.6" PART PERFORMANCE – NOT A SWORD
5ome 'ndian decisions decisions betray a misconcepti misconception on of the limited scope of the 5ection. 'n a decided case67, a defendant who had taen possession under an unregistered lease, was held liable for the rent, and the damages were awarded to the plaintiff. 'n this case, this 5ection was used as a ground of attac, and the cardinal principle was overlooed, i.e., part performance was an act of person seeing to avail himself of the e&uity, and that the cats of the person sought to be charged are of no avail. 'n another case6, the (ourt granted a declaration of right to the person claiming under the transferee. However, in this regard the 5upreme (ourt has laid down to rest all doubts, and held that the benefit of 5ection 67A 6 7A cannot be taen aid of by b y the transfereeMplaintiff to establish his right as the owner of the property. property.66 't has been further held that 5ection 67A can be used as a shield, but not as an independent claim either as a plaintiff or as defendant.6G't is a )weapon )weapon of defence and not attac*.6 A 0ull %ench of %ombay High (ourt has held that when it is said that proposed transferee-in-possession can use 5ection 67A as a shield, and not as a sword, it means that he can
52 (haman @al v. 5urinder Fumari, A'? C!7 PH 7"7. 53 5ulleman v. Patel, A'? C77 %om. 7!. 54 Bastram v. Ba 2bn, A'? C7 ?ang "!. 55 supra note . 56 3.P.Tripathi v. amayanti evi Anr, A'? C!! Pat. "7D Patel 3atwarlal ?up+i v. Fondh Iroup Fheti Lishaya, A'? CCG 5( >!!.
57 (heta (onstruction @td. v. 2m Praash, A'? ">>7 BP 6. 11 | P a g e
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
use 5ection 67A either as a plaintiff or as a defendant to protect his possession, but he cannot use 5ection 67A either for getting title or for getting possession if is not actually in possession. 'n other words, when the transferee-in-possession comes to the court as a plaintiff seeing a decree of perpetual in+unction in+unction against the transferor transferor,, he is using 5ection 67A as a shield shield to protect his possession.6! Hence, it can be concluded that right conferred by 5ection 67A is a right available only to the defendant to protect his positionD it does not create any title in the defendant. 't operates merely as a bar to the plaintiff p laintiff asserting asserting his title, and cannot be used as a weapon of attac. PROVISO : TRANSFEREE FOR CONSIDERATION WITHOUT NOTICE
The proviso to this 5ection protects the rights of a subse&uent transferee for value without notice of previous transferee*s rights of part-performance. Therefore, this 5ection does not affect the rights of transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract of sale or of part performance. The purpose of the proviso is to defeat the claim which would otherwise, have succeeded under the main part of this 5ection.6C The &uestion of proviso does not arise until and unless the claimant has substantiated his claim under the main part of this 5ection. G> The proviso to the 5ection 5ection saves the right of a transferee transferee for consideration consideration who has no notice of the contract or its part-performance.G The burden for proving that he is a transferee for consideration without notice is on the transferee.G" This was so held prior to the enactment of 5ection 67A.
58 5adashiv (hander %hamgare v. Enath Pandharinath 3angude, A'? ">> %om 7!. 59 52@' J 52?A%JEE, A?A5HA9 J LAF'@*5 (2BBE3TA?'E5 23 THE T?A350E? 20 P?2PE?TK A(T 6C6 #" nd ed 9adhwa 3agpur ">>$.
60 5 Leerabadra 3aicer v. 5 5ambanda 3aicer, A'? ">>7 Bad CD Kasodammal v. Janai Ammal, A'? CG! Bad "C
61 supra note supra note 6 62 Prova ?ani v. @alit Bohini, A'? CG> (al 6 12 | P a g e
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
WHEN IS DOCTRINE OF PART-PERFORMNACE NOT AVAILABLE
This doctrine was not available against other co-owners, i.e., the two brothers who were not the signatories to the agreement or the consenting party nor the recitals show that the agreement was entered into with the consent of the adult members, therefore, the protection of doctrine of part performance was not available to defendant no.7 against the plaintiffs. Therefore, even if the agreement was valid to the e1tent of the share of the widow, as held by the lower appellate (ourt, the remedy for the appellant was to institute a suit for decree for specific performance to the e1tent of the share of the widow an d also a suit for partition as it was a Hindu undivided family property. property.G7 CONCLUSION
The doctrine of part performance is an e&uitable doctrine designed to relieve the rigor of the law and provide a remedy when a transfer or an agreement for transfer falls short of the re&uirements laid down by the law. 'n England the doctrine was developed by the E&uity (ourts. 'n a modified form it has been recognied statutorily in 'ndia being embodied in 5ection 67A.G 5ection 67A of the Transfer of Property Act applies to a person who contracts to transfer immovable property in writing. 'f the proposed transferee in agreement has taen possession of the the prope propert rty y or he cont contin inues ues in poss posses essi sion on ther thereo eoff bein being g alre already ady in poss posses essi sion, on, in part part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, the transferor shall be debarred from enforcing any right in respect of the property.G6 Also, 5ection 67A does not confer any title or interest to the transferee in respect of the property in his possession. 0urthermore, it does not give to the transferee any right of action. 't provides
63 supra note supra note 6 64 supra note supra note supra note 6> 65 supra note
13 | P a g e
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
merely a right of defence. This is the essence of the principle incorporated in 5ection 67A of the Transfer of Property Act.GG
BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS
. %.%.B' %.%.B'T?A T?A,, T?A350 T?A350E? E? 20 P?2PE P?2PE?T ?TK K #! #!th ed Famal @aw House Folata ">>6$ ". r.5'? r.5'? HA?' 5'3IH 5'3IH I2/?, (2BBE3T (2BBE3TA? A?K K 23 T?A350E T?A350E? ? 20 P?2PE?TK P?2PE?TK A(T A(T #" ed Lol elhi @aw House ">>$ 7. I.(. %HA?/FA, %HA?/FA, B/@@A B/@@A THE T?A350E T?A350E? ? 20 P?2PE?T P?2PE?TK K A(T A(T #>th ed @e1is 3e1is %utterworths 9adhwa 9adhwa 3agpur 3agp ur ">>G$ . 52@' 52@' J 52?A 52?A% %JEE, JEE, A?A A?A5H 5HA A9 J LAF'@ F'@*5 (2BB 2BBE3T E3TA?'E5 ?'E5 23 THE T?A350E? 20 P?2PE?TK A(T #"nd ed 9adhwa 3agpur ">>$ 6. LE?A LE?A P. 5A?TH 5A?TH', ', I.(.L I.(.L.. 5/%%A ?A2*5 ?A2*5 @A9 20 T?A350E? T?A350E? 20 P?2PE? P?2PE?TK TK #EA5EB #EA5EBE3T E3T5, 5, T?/5T T?/5T A3 A3 9' 9'@@5 @@5$$ GC #?epri #?eprint nt ed Alt Alt Public Publicati ations ons Hyderab Hyderabad ad ">>6$ CASE LAWS
. Achayya Achayya v. Lenata 5ubba 5ubba ?ao, ?ao, A'? A'? C6 AP !6D ". Probodh Fumar as v. v. antmar antmaraa Tea Tea (o, (o, A'? A'? C> P( P( . 7. elhi Botor Botor (ompany (ompany v. /.A.%asrur /.A.%asrurar, ar, A'? CG! 5( C. C. . Technici Technicians ans 5tudio 5tudio Pvt. Pvt. @td. v. v. @eela @eela Ihosh, Ihosh, A'? A'? C 5( 7". 6. ABA 5ultan 5ultan and 2rs. 2rs. v. 5eydu ohra ohra %eevi, %eevi, A'? A'? CC> Fer Fer !G.
66 Id. 14 | P a g e
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
G. Amrao Amrao v. v. %abu %aburao rao,, #C6> #C6>$$ '@? '@? 3ag 3ag "6 . Annamalai Annamalai Ioundan Ioundan v. Lenataswami nataswami 3aidu, 3aidu, A'? A'? C6C Bad 76. 76. !. Ariff Ariff v. Jaduna Jadunath, th, A'? A'? C7 C7 P( C C. Ayyan Ayyan Funhi v. Frishna, Frishna, A'? A'? C6> Tr(och Tr(och !D !D >. %alram Jairam v. v. Fewalram, A'? C> 3ag 7CG . %habhi utt v. v. ?amlalbyamal, ?amlalbyamal, A'? A'? C7 ?ang. 7>7. ". %hagwandas v. 5ura+mal, A'? A'? CG BP "7. 7. (haliagulla ?amchandrayya v. v. %oppana 5atyanarayana, 5atyanarayana, A'? A'? CG 5( ! . (haman @al v. 5urinder Fumari, A'? A'? C!7 PH 7"7. 6. (heta (onstruction @td. v. v. 2m Praash, Praash, A'? A'? ">>7 BP 6. G. amodaran amodaran v. 5heharan 5heharan A'? A'? CC7 Fer "", . elhi Botor (o. v. v. %asurar, %asurar, A'? A'? CG! 5( C. !. Ia+dhar v. %achan, A'? A'? C7 All All G!. C. Hamida v. 5mt 5mt Humer and ors., A'? CC" All 7G. ">. Hailal v. Jugal Fishore, A'? A'? CCC BP >. ". Hemra+ v. ?ustom+i, A'? A'? C67 5( 6>7. "". Jacobs Private @imited v. v. Thomas Thomas Jacob, A'? A'? CC6 Fer "C "7. Jileba v. Barmersa, A'? A'? C6> All All >>. ". Fanaamma v. Frishnamma, #C7$ B@J 776#0.%.$ 776#0.%.$ "6. Fripa ?am v. %ishen as, A'? A'? C @ah C. "G. Fuchwar @ime 5tone (o. v. v. 5ecretary of 5tate, A'? A'? C7G Pat 7". ". Fua+i v. %asantilal, A'? A'? C66 Badh %h C7. "!. B. Bariappa v. A.F. 5athyanarayan 5hetty, A'? C! Fant 6!. "C. Ba 5hwe Fin v. Fa Hee, Hee, A'? C" ?ang ?ang 7!. 7>. Badan Bohan v. 5rinivas Prasad, A'? C7 Pat 77. 7. Bahalashmi v. Lenatareddi, A'? C Bad 66G. 7". Bahomed Busa v. Aghore Fumar Ianguli, #C$ #C$ '@? " (al !> 77. Banelal Banushbahi v. Honnus+i Jamshed+i, A'? C6> 5( 7. Ban+ural Ho&ue v. Bewa+an %ibi, A'? A'? C6G (al 76>. 76. Baruti v. Frishna, A'? A'? CG %om 7. 7G. Bastram Bastram v. Ba 2bn, A'? A'? C7 ?ang "!.
15 | P a g e
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
7. Bian Pir %u1 v. 5ardar Bahomed Tahar, Tahar, A'? C7 P( "76 7!. Buralidhar v. Tara Tara ye, A'? C67 (al 7C. 7C. 3.P.Tripathi 3.P.Tripathi v. amayanti amayanti evi Anr, A'? A'? C!! Pat. "7 >. 3athu @al v. v. Phoolchand, Phoolchand, :C>< " 5(? !6 . Pannalal Pannalal v. @abhchand, @abhchand, A'? A'? C66 Badh %h CC. ". Patel 3atwarlal ?up+i v. Fondh Iroup Fheti Lishaya, Lishaya, A'? CCG 5( >!!. 7. Prova ?ani v. @alit Bohini, A'? CG> (al 6 . ?adha (haran as v. Pranbati assi, #C6C$ G7 (al (al 93 676. 6. ?adhanath 5wain v. v. Badhusudan, A'? C6G 2ri 6!. G. ?am Iopal ?eddy v. Additional (ustodian, Evacuee Property, Property, A'? A'? CGG 5( 7!. . ?am Fumar Agarwal Agarwal v. Thawar as #CCC$ 5(( 5(( 7>7 !. ?ambhao 3amdeo Ia+re v. 3arayan %apu+i hotra, #">>$ ! 5(( G C. ?ami ?eddi v. Lenat Lenat ?eddi, A'? A'? CG7 AP !C. 6>. ?anchhoddas (hhaganlal v. eva+i 5updu, A'? A'? C 5( 6. 6. ?anchod v. v. ipru, ipru, A'? A'? C6 %om 67. 6". ?asharetayya v. 5arasamma, A'? A'? C6 Bad "7. 67. 5 Leer Leerabadra abadra 3aicer v. 5 5ambanda 3aicer, A'? ">>7 Bad C 6. 5.3.%aner+ee v. Fuchwar @ime 5tone (o. @td., A'? C P( "!. 66. 5adashiv (hander %hamgare v. Enath Pandharinath 3angude, A'? A'? ">> %om 7!. 6G. 5ardar Iovindrao Bahadi anr. v. v. evi 5ahai and ors., A'? A'? C!" 5( C!C. 6. 5ham @al v. Bathi, A'? A'? ">>" HP GG . 6!. 5hrimat 5hamrao 5uryavanshi v. v. Prahlad %hairoba 5uryavanshi, A'? ">>" 5( CG> 6C. 5hula Balhotra v. Lyasa Lyasa %an @td., #CC!$ 6 ?J 6>. G>. 5tate of /ttar Pradesh v. istrict Judge, A'? A'? CC 5( 67. G. 5ulleman 5ulleman v. Patel, Patel, A'? C77 %om. 7!. G". 5unil Fumar 5arar v. Aghor Fumar %asu, A'? C!C Iau 7C. G7. 5waran Fumar Jain v. v. ev utt Baha+an and ors., A'? A'? CC JF 77. G. /.3.5harma v. Puttegowda and anr., anr., A'? A'? C!G Fant. CC. G6. Kasodammal Kasodammal v. Janai Ammal, Ammal, A'? A'? CG! Bad "C
16 | P a g e
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE
17 | P a g e
