TOPIC: DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………….04
2. DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE…………………………………………...06
2.1 CONCEPT
2.2 SECTION 53A OF TPA

3. HISTORY OF PART PERFORMANCE…………………………………………..…07

4. ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 53A………..09
5. SCOPE OF THE SECTION 53A……………………………………………………....10
6. IS THE SECTION RETROSPECTIVE? ……………………………………………....10
7. ACT OF PART PERFORMANCE……………………………………………………..11
8. NATURE OF TANSFEREE’S RIGHT UNDER SECTION 53A……………………...11
8.1 NO TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY
8.2 NO RIGHT OF ACTION
8.3 TRANSFEREE, WHETHER PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT?
8.4 WHO CAN CLAIM PROTECTION AND AGAINST WHOM
8.5 UNREGISTERED LEASE DEED

9. PART PERFORMANCE – NOT A SWORD ………………………………………....14

10. PROVISO: TRANSFEREE FOR CONSIDERATION WITHOUT NOTICE………....15
11. PERIOD OF LIMITATION………………………………………………………….....15
12. WHEN IS DOCTRINE OF PART-PERFORMNACE NOT AVAILABLE …………..15
13. COMPARISON OF SEC. 53 WITH ENGLISH DOCTRINE OF PART
PERFORMANCE………………………………………………………………………16
14. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………17
15. BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………18

1
 1. INTRODUCTION

Property is one of the most important aspects of a person's socio-economic life. In legal words,
property can be said as a collection of rights in a thing or a piece of land. However, the term has
come to have a broader meaning throughout time. Economic significance of the property,
therefore, rests more on its dispositions. As a result, Property law has become an important
branch of civil law. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with the transfer of immoveable
property inter-vivos(although some provisions deal with the transfer of moveable as well as
immovable property).

Doctrine of part performance is a very important provision under the Transfer of Property Act
1882 and the relevant provisions have been enacted under Section 53A of the Transfer of
Property Act. The concept of part performance has been taken from English Law. This
principle though is an English doctrine, but in India it has been incorporated with some
differences. Thus, the English doctrine of Part Performance and the Indian Doctrine of
Part Performance as incorporated in the Transfer of Property Act (TPA), 1882 under
Section 53A, are different in some aspects. The concerned Section in TPA has gone through
several amendments through the course of time.

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 seeks to protect the prospective transferees by
allowing them to retain the possession over the property, against the rights of the transferors,
who after the execution of an incomplete instrument of transfer, fail to complete it in the manner
specified by law, without there being any fault on part of the transferees. It furnishes a statutory
defense to a person who has no registered title in his favour to maintain possession and prevents
from being ejected from the property. To understand the concept in a better way, an elaboration
is essential. In this project, the various aspects of doctrine of part-performance have been
analyzed by placing reliance on the statutory provisions as well as case laws in detail.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the project is to present a detailed study on the topic of ‘Doctrine of Part-
Performance’ under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

2
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

Though this is such a topic that a book can be written on it but because of certain
restrictions and limitations I was not able to deal with the topic in great detail.

SOURCES OF DATA

The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-

1. Articles

2. Books

3. Websites

METHOD OF WRITING

The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily
analytical.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research work of this project is based on doctrinal method.

MODE OF CITATION

The researcher has followed a uniform mode of citation throughout this project.

3
 2. DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE

Doctrine of part performance is an equitable doctrine. It is also known as ‘equity of part-

performance’. Under this doctrine, if a person has taken 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 ejected from the property on the ground the sale was unregistered and the
legal title had not been transferred to him.1

For instance, there is a contract for the sale of a piece of land between A and B. the contract is in
writing, stamped, attested and duly executed but not registered by A, who is the seller. B, who is
the purchaser has performed, or is willing to perform his part of contract i.e. has paid the price or
is willing to do the same. On basis of such contract B takes possession of the land. Now A sells
the land to C through a registered deed. C having the legal title of the land, attempts to eject B. at
this stage, since B has no legal title, law may not protect his possession, but equity shall help him
from getting dispossessed.2

The doctrine of part-performance is, therefore, based on the maxim: Equity looks on that as done
which ought to have been done. That is to say, equity treats the subject-matter of a contract as to
its effects in the same manner as if the Act contemplated in the contract had been fully executed,
from the moment the agreement has been made, though all the legal formalities of the contract
have not been completed.

The Doctrine of part-performance was incorporated in section 53A by the Amending Act of
1929. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act provides;3

53A. Part performance.4—Where 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,

1
Poonam Pradhan, Property Law 335 (LexisNexis, Gurgaon, 3rd edn 2020).
2
Ibid.
3
S. N. Shukla, The Transfer of Property Act (Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 2020).
4
The Transfer of Property Act,1882 (4 of 1882) s. 53A

4
 and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken 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 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 taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the
terms of the contract:

Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for
consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof.

The Section has been described by the Privy Council, and by the Supreme Court, as partial
importation of the English of doctrine of part performance. By virtue of this Section part
performance does not give rise to an equity, as in England, but to a statutory right. This right is
more restricted than the English equity in two respects: (1) there must be a written contract; and
(2) it is only available as a defence. So far as India is concerned, The Supreme Court observed
that the protection provided under section 53A is a shield only against the transferor. It
disentitles the transferor from disturbing possession of the proposed transferee who has been put
into possession under the agreement. It has nothing to do with the ownership of the transferor
who remains full owner of the property till it is legally conveyed by executing a registered sale
deed.5 Thus, it may be said that section 53A is a partial importation into India of the English
equitable doctrine of part-performance.6

3. HISTORY OF PART PERFORMANCE

The doctrine of part-performance was evolved by the Court of Equity in England. In 1677, a
statute was enacted in England known as the Statute of Frauds, 1677, to prevent perpetuation of

5
AIR 2004 SC 4342.
6
Doctrine of Part Performance, India, available at https://www.legalserviceindia.com (last visited on Nov 26,
2021).

5
fraud in the transfers of land. Section 4 of this 1677 provided that all agreements in respect of
transfers of land must be in writing. Therefore, all the transfers of immovable property on the
basis of oral agreements were held illegal and transferee could not get title to the land. This in
actual application allowed perpetuation of fraud instead of preventing it. Strict application of this
law created great hardship to transferees. For helping such transferees the Courts of Equity
(Chancery Courts) came forward and held that part-performance by the transferee, who held the
lands on the basis of oral contracts would not be governed by the Statute of Frauds. Thus, the
bona fide transferees who had performed their part of the contract by paying price in full or
taking possession of land could get the title to the property even in the absence of legal
formalities of written agreement or registered instrument.7

The doctrine of part-performance was firmly established in England in the case of Maddison v
Alderson,8 in which Lord Selbourne observed: In a suit founded on part-performance, the
defendant is really charged upon the equities resulting from the acts done in execution of the
contract and not upon the contract itself. If such equities were excluded, injustice of a kind which
the statute cannot be thought to have had in contemplation, would follow.

In the old Madras case, Kurri Veera Reddi v Kurri Bapi Reddi,9 the High Court held that the
English doctrine of part-performance was not applicable in Indian law. In 1914, the Privy
Council in Md Musa v Aghore Kumar Ganguly,10 held that the doctrine of part-performance
was applicable in India on the principle of justice, equity and good conscience. In this case, a
compromise deed (razinamah) was in writing but not registered. However, in Ariff v
Jadunath,11 the Privy Council held that the doctrine of part-performance was not applicable to
India because it cannot by-pass the express provisions of the Indian Registration Act. The next
case before the Privy Council was Mian Pir Bux v Sardar Mohammad Tahir.12 In this case,
the Privy Council rejecting the defendant's contention held that the equitable doctrine of part-
performance was not available in India against the express statutory provisions.

7
Supra note 1 at 336
8
(1883) 8 AC 467.
9
(1906) 29 Mad 336.
10
AIR 1914 PC 27.
11
AIR 1931 PC 79.
12
AIR 1934 PC 235.

6
Section 53A was first enacted in 1929 by the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act 1929, and
imports into India a modified form of equity of part-performance as developed in England in
Maddison. The enactment of the section sets at rest the considerable uncertainty prevailing in
Indian law as can be seen by three decisions of the Privy Council.

Recently, para 4 of Section 53A has been amended by Section 10 of the Registration and Other
Related Laws (Amendment) Act 2001 (Act 48 of 2001) whereby the words ‘the contract, though
required to be registered, or’ has been omitted.

4. ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 53A

In Nathulal v. Phool Chand,13 Supreme Court while interpreting Section 53-A called out the
following conditions to be fulfilled for making out the defence of part performance to an action
in ejectment by the owner, as under:, also an analysis of the provisions of Section 53A makes it
clear that following essential conditions are necessary for its application:

 There must be a contract for the transfer of an immovable property for consideration.
 The contract should be in writing and its terms can be ascertained with reasonable
certainty.
 The transferee should have taken the possession of the property in part-performance of
the contract or if he is already in possession, should have continued in possession in part-
performance of the contract, and should have done something in furtherance of the
contract.
 The transferee is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

When the above mentioned conditions are fulfilled, the transferee can defend his continuance of
possession over the property. In other words, if these requirements are fulfilled, the transferee is
entitled to claim, under this Section, that he should not be dispossessed or evicted from the
property.14

Contract to Sale, Lease, Mortgage, Exchange, Easements and Exchange would fall within the
ambit of this provision as there is a consideration to be given by the other party. But in case of

13
AIR 1970 SC 546.
14
Supra note 1.

7
gift, since, there includes no consideration as per Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882. Hence, gift cannot be included within the purview of the doctrine and any person
aggrieved cannot take the defence of this doctrine.15

5. SCOPE OF THE SECTION

So far as applicability of Section 53A is concerned, what is to be seen is that the Section
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 Section 53A. Proposed transferor remains full owner of the lands till they are
legally conveyed by a sale deed to the proposed transferees. Such a right to protect possession
against the vendor cannot be pressed in service against a third party like a state when it seeks to
enforce the provisions of the Act against the tenure-holder.16

In absence of the pleadings and evidence of all the essential conditions, making out a defence of
part performance to protect possession claimed by the plaintiff, would not be attracted. The plea
under Section 53 A of the TP Act raises a mixed question of law and fact, and therefore, cannot
be permitted to be urged for the first time at the stage of second appeal.

6. IS THE SECTION RETROSPECTIVE?

There is a sharp cleavage of judicial opinion on this question. The Madras High Court has
consistently held that the Section has no retrospective operation and does not apply to transfers
effected prior to 1st April, 1930. The Calcutta High Court has said that the section applies
retrospectively, except that the Section would not apply to such transactions which were the
subject matter of pending actions on 1st April, 1930. This is the present view also of Patna High
Court though there are earlier decisions of the Court to the contrary. The Allahabad High Court
also holds that Section 53A applies to transactions that took place prior 1st April, 1930 provided
the suit is brought after that date. The Bombay High Court agrees with this view. The present

15
The Doctrine of Part Performance, India, available at: https://www.lawoctopus.com/academike (last visited on
Nov 26, 2021)
16
The Doctrine of Part Performance-Meaning, scope and objective, India, available at https://www.lawcorner.in
(last visited on Nov 26, 2021)

8
view of all the High Courts is that Section 53A does not affect any proceeding commenced
before the Amending Act of 1929.

7. ACT OF PART PERFORMANCE

Repairs and improvements affected under a mortgage cannot be an act of part performance under
a subsequent sale, as it is an act preliminary to a sale. 17 The mere retention by a tenant, or a
mortgagee in possession, of possession after the expiry of the original lease or mortgage is not an
act of part performance. Similarly possession obtained subsequent to an agreement, and not
referable to it is not an act of part performance. 18 Where however the tenant remains in
possession after an expiry of old lease, and pays reduced rent, it is an act of part performance of
the renewal of the lease at a reduced rent.19 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.
However, this Section does not apply when a mortgage in possession continues in possession
under an oral sale.

Where a lessee retained possession after the expiry 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. For 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 Section 53A, it is
necessary to show that he continues in possession in pursuance of the contract. Mere continuance
in possession does not satisfy the requirement of the Section.20

8. NATURE OF TANSFEREE’S RIGHT UNDER SECTION 53A

8.1 NO TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY

Section 53A does not confer any title or interest on the transferee in the property in his
possession. It only says that where the conditions of this section are fulfilled, the right of the
transferee in respect of the property in possession will be protected. The transferor or anyone

17
Kukaji vs Basantilal AIR 1955 Madh Bh 93.
18
Manjural Hoque vs Mehjawan Bibi AIR 1956 Cal. 350.
19
Satyaniranjan Chakravarty v Habibur Sobhan AIR 1933 Cal 393.
20
Sunil Kumar Sarkar v Aghor Kumar Basu, AIR 1989 Gau 39.

9
claiming under him will not be able to evict him from the property because he can raise the plea
of part-performance and this section will come for his protection.21

In the case of Technicians Studio Ltd v Lila Ghosh,22 the Technicians Studio was a sub-lessee
of the disputed premises but later on it became a direct tenant for 16 years under a compromise,
the deed of which was unregistered. After the expiry of period of 16 years, the landlord issued a
notice and filed a suit for eviction. The Supreme Court observed that since there was no lease
deed and the compromise was also unregistered, it created no interest in favour of the Technician
Studio, i.e., the transferee. The Supreme Court held that under the unregistered compromise deed
the transferee could protect his interest only for the period of 16 years on the basis of part-
performance but after that it was not entitled to claim any interest or title in the property.

8.2 NO RIGHT OF ACTION

Section 53A is a statutory right which can be used to defend possession of transferee and can be
used only as a defense. It does not give any right of action to the transferee. The transferee can
only defend his eviction in case he fulfils the conditions of this section. Transferee should be in
actual possession when his rights are being considered under this section.23 In India, the equity of
part-performance is passive equity, it can be used only as a shield and not as a sword.

The Supreme Court observed in Ranchhoddas Chhaganlal v Devaji Supdu Dorik,24 that where
A filed a suit against B for specific performance of the contract of sale on the ground that B, who
was in possession of the house, failed to pay A within the time the balance of Rs 5000 of the
purchase price along with the interest thereon and that there was no extension of time for the
performance of the contract, B having failed to perform his part of the contract within time could
not rely on the doctrine of part-performance.

8.3 TRANSFEREE, WHETHER PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT?

21
Avtar Singh, Textbook on the Transfer of Property Act (Universal Law Publishing-An Imprint of LexisNexis, New
Delhi, 6th edn. 2019).
22
AIR 1979 SC 2425.
23
West Bengal State Electricity Board v Sevoke Properties Pvt Ltd, AIR 2019 Cal 110 .
24
AIR 1977 SC 1517.

10
This section confers on the transferee a right to defend his possessions, whether as a defendant or
as a plaintiff, it is not relevant.25 According to the Allahabad, Bombay and Andhra Pradesh High
Courts, the transferee may also be "plaintiff" if it is necessary to protect his possession. But
according to the Orissa, Madras and Punjab High Courts, the transferee can protect his interest
only as a "defendant".26

8.4 WHO CAN CLAIM PROTECTION AND AGAINST WHOM

The protection under the section can be availed of by the transferee or any person claiming under
him against his transferor or any person claiming under him but not against a third person with
whom he does not have a privity of contract. In the case of Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v
Narayan Bapuji Dhotra,27 a person purchased a piece of land. He paid the full amount to the
seller and was put into possession. The buyer resold the land, received full consideration from
his buyer and handed over possession to him. The original seller sued the second buyer to
recover possession. The Supreme Court did not allow the second buyer to invoke protection of
section 53A. There was no privity of contract between him and the original seller. He was not a
transferee within the meaning of section 53A. Persons claiming under the original seller may
include his tenants. In this case, by virtue of a sale deed, the plaintiff (transferee) was put into
possession by the original seller. He was also authorised to collect rents from the tenants of the
original owner. The court said that a transferee who is put into possession of the property steps
into the shoes of the landlord entitling him to evict tenants from the premises. This is so
irrespective of the fact that the tenants were paying rent to the original owner.

8.5 UNREGISTERED LEASE DEED

An unregistered lease deed had been held to be admissible for defending possession obtained in
part-performance of the agreement of lease. Since the lease was for a period beyond one year and
having been created by an unregistered instrument, it became monthly and not yearly lease. The
lessee could not rely upon 30 years term of the lease and claim protection against eviction under
section 53A. A term in relation to the period of lease was held to be not a collateral purpose
25
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 as a plaintiff or as a defendant should make no difference,
Dharmaji v Jagannath Shankar Jadhav, AIR 1994 Bom 254.
26
Supra note 21.
27
AIR 2004 SC 4342.

11
within the meaning of section 49 of the Registration Act.28 The Supreme Court in its decision in
Satish Chand Makhan v Govardhan Das Byas,29 held that "the unregistered lease agreement
was clearly inadmissible in evidence under section 49 of the Registration Act except for the
collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of possession of the defendants. The
proviso to section 49 was however not applicable in the present case as the terms of a lease are
not a collateral purpose.

9. PART PERFORMANCE – NOT A SWORD

Some Indian decisions betray a misconception of the limited scope of the Section. In the case of
Suleman v PN Patel,30 a defendant who had taken possession under an unregistered lease, was
held liable for the rent, and the damages were awarded to the plaintiff. In this case, this Section
was used as a ground of attack, and the cardinal principle was overlooked, i.e., part performance
was an act of person seeking to avail himself of the equity, and that the cats of the person sought
to be charged are of no avail. In another case, the Court granted a declaration of right to the
person claiming under the transferee.

However, in this regard the Supreme Court has laid down to rest all doubts, and held that the
benefit of Section 53A cannot be taken aid of by the transferee/plaintiff to establish his right as
the owner of the property.31 It has been further held that Section 53A can be used as a shield, but
not as an independent claim either as a plaintiff or as defendant. It is a ‘weapon of defence and
not attack’. A Full Bench of Bombay High Court has held that when it is said that proposed
transferee-in-possession can use Section 53A as a shield, and not as a sword, it means that he can
use Section 53A either as a plaintiff or as a defendant to protect his possession, but he cannot use
Section 53A either for getting title or for getting possession if is not actually in possession. In
other words, when the transferee-in-possession comes to the court as a plaintiff seeking a decree
of perpetual injunction against the transferor, he is using Section 53A as a shield to protect his
possession.

28
Supra note 21.
29
AIR 1984 SC 143.
30
AIR 1933 Bom 381.
31
Ram Gopal Reddy v Additional Custodian Evacuee Property, Hyderabad, AIR 1966 SC 143

12
Hence, it can be concluded that right conferred by Section 53A is a right available only to the
defendant to protect his position; it does not create any title in the defendant. It operates merely
as a bar to the plaintiff asserting his title, and cannot be used as a weapon of attack.

10. PROVISO: TRANSFEREE FOR CONSIDERATION WITHOUT NOTICE

The proviso to this Section protects the rights of a subsequent transferee for value without notice
of previous transferee’s rights of part-performance. Therefore, this Section 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 Section. The question of proviso does not arise until and unless the claimant
has substantiated his claim under the main part of this Section. 32 The proviso to the Section saves
the right of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or its part-
performance.33 The burden for proving that he is a transferee for consideration without notice is
on the transferee.34 This was so held prior to the enactment of Section 53A.35

11. PERIOD OF LIMITATION

The rule of part performance does not arrest the running of the period of limitation. The
transferee who obtained possession of the property under rule of part performance was not
allowed to resist the suit for possession if his right to obtain specific performance had become
barred by limitation.36

12. WHEN IS DOCTRINE OF PART-PERFORMNACE NOT AVAILABLE

Doctrine of part performance cannot be availed of with respect to transactions which are null and
void due to contravention with statutory law.37 It does not apply to a document which though
required to be registered has not been registered, or a transfer in contravention of a statute, or
where possession was given to a person before the required permission from the tehsildar or
32
S Veerabhadra Naicker v S Sambanda Naicker, AIR 2003 Mad. 19.
33
Hemraj V Rustomji, AIR 1953 SC 503.
34
Supra note 1 at 350.
35
The Doctrine of Part Performance, India, available at https://newyorkessays.com (last visited on Nov 26, 2021).
36
Supra note 21.
37
Bhagwan Das v Suraj Mal, AIR 1961 MP 237.

13
from the other statutory authority was obtained; or an agreement by a municipality without
complying with the requisite formalities prescribed by the statute incorporating it, or an
agreement regarding sale of the company's property when it is in liquidation without the sanction
of the creditors or an agreement to sell the property by a trustee without the cotrustees joining
him or an agreement to sell the succession rights of a reversioner. But where the vendor agrees to
sell his share of the land the court will direct him to apply for the permission as it is an implied
term that he would be get the permission before such sale and the contract would not be void
only because the sanction has not been obtained.38

13. COMPARISON OF SEC. 53 WITH ENGLISH DOCTRINE OF PART

PERFORMANCE39

Section 53A has only partially incorporated the English doctrine of Part-performance. The points
of difference between the two are discussed below:—

(1) Under English law, even an oral agreement is sufficient to attract the application of this
doctrine but in India, the contract to which this section applies must be in writing and signed by
the transferor.

(2) Under English law, this doctrine can be used both as a sword and a shield, i.e., it can be used
both for enforcing the right as well as defending the right. However, in India, it can be used only
as a shield, i.e., to defend the right of the transferee.

(3) In English law, doctrine of part-performance gives rise to an equity but in Indian law, it gives
rise to a statutory right of defence.

38
Poonam Pradhan, Property Law 352 (LexisNexis, Gurgaon, 3 rd edn 2020).
39
Ibid.

14
14. CONCLUSION

The doctrine of part performance is an equitable 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 requirements
laid down by the law. In England the doctrine was developed by the Equity Courts. In a modified
form it has been recognized statutorily in India being embodied in Section 53A.

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act applies to a person who contracts to transfer
immovable property in writing. If the proposed transferee in agreement has taken possession of
the property or he continues in possession thereof being already 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, the transferor shall be
debarred from enforcing any right in respect of the property.

Also, Section 53A does not confer any title or interest to the transferee in respect of the property
in his possession. Furthermore, it does not give to the transferee any right of action. It provides
merely a right of defence. This is the essence of the principle incorporated in Section 53A of the
Transfer of Property Act.

Thus, the doctrine of part performance is an equitable doctrine which is incorporated to prevent
fraud from taking advantage on non-registration of the document. It is based on the doctrine
Equity looks at the intention rather than form.

15
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882).

BOOKS

 Poonam Pradhan, Property Law (LexisNexis, Gurgaon, 3rd edn 2020).

 S. N. Shukla, The Transfer of Property Act (Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 2020).

 Avtar Singh, Textbook on the Transfer of Property Act (Universal Law Publishing-An

Imprint of LexisNexis, New Delhi, 6th edn. 2019)

JOURNAL

 G.M. Sen, “The Doctrine of Part Performance in India” 11 Journal of the Indian Law
Institute (1969).

WEBSITES

 Indiankanoon.org

 www.lexisnexis.com.elibrarydsnlu.remotexs.in

 www.legalserviceindia.com

 www.lawoctopus.com

 www.lawcorner.in

 www.blog.ipleaders.in

16