Vasanthi v. Venugopal (D) Thr. L.Rs.
Background
Vasanthi bought a property in 1982 by registered sale deed and sued for a declaration of title and possession against Venugopal, who claimed he was already in possession under an earlier (1975) unregistered agreement to sell with the original owner and refused to accept her as his landlord. The trial court and the High Court (in a first appeal) both dismissed her suit, holding that Venugopal's possession was protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (the "part performance" doctrine). Her further Letters Patent Appeal to a Division Bench was rejected as not maintainable under Section 100-A CPC.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court upheld that the Letters Patent Appeal was rightly held not maintainable, since Section 100-A of the CPC (as amended in 2002) bars any further appeal from a decision of a Single Judge in a first appeal. However, on the merits, the Court held that Venugopal's heirs could not claim the protection of Section 53A, because the evidence did not show they had always remained "ready and willing" to perform their part of the 1975 agreement (a mandatory precondition for the protection), nor did it show that Vasanthi had notice of that earlier agreement when she purchased the property. Since her registered sale deed remained valid and unchallenged, the Court allowed the civil appeal against the first-appeal judgment and decreed the suit in her favour, while dismissing the separate appeal against the LPA rejection.
Lesson Learnt
A person resisting an owner's title merely by claiming long-standing possession under an old, unregistered sale agreement must actually prove they were continuously ready and willing to complete that purchase: mere possession and the passage of time are not enough to defeat a later bona fide buyer's registered title.