Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi v Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi

Facts

A transferee was put in possession of immovable property in part performance of a written contract of sale but did not, or could not, obtain a conveyance, and the limitation period for a suit for specific performance expired. When the transferor (or those claiming under him) sued to recover possession, the transferee sought to protect his possession by pleading part performance under Section 53A.

Issues

• Whether a transferee in possession can invoke Section 53A as a defence to a suit for recovery of possession after the period of limitation for specific performance has expired.
• Whether the law of limitation applies to a plea of part performance raised in defence.

Arguments

The transferor argued that, since a suit for specific performance was time-barred, the transferee had no enforceable right and his possession was liable to be recovered. The transferee contended that Section 53A operates as a defensive shield to protect possession and is not defeated by limitation, which applies to suits and applications, not to a defence.

Held

The Supreme Court held that although limitation bars a suit for specific performance brought after the prescribed period, it remains open to a defendant in a suit for recovery of possession brought by the transferor to take the plea of part performance under Section 53A to protect his possession. The conditions of Section 53A being satisfied, the bar of limitation cannot be set up against such a defence, because limitation applies to suits and applications, not to a defence raised by a defendant. The right under Section 53A is available only as a shield, not as a sword.

Ratio decidendi

Where the six conditions of Section 53A are satisfied, a transferee in possession may, as a defence, protect that possession against the transferor's suit even after a suit for specific performance has become time-barred, since the law of limitation does not apply to a defensive plea.

Significance

Leading Supreme Court authority on the defensive, shield-only character of Section 53A and its survival despite expiry of limitation for specific performance; frequently cited (with Vasanthi v Venugopal qualifying that all prerequisites must still be met).

Related