1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL No.567/05. Zibai Sakharam Kshirsagar .vs. Smt.Manjulabai Domaji Kale and ors. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. DATE : 6th February, 2008. 1. Heard Mr.Vyawahare, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.N.G.Salao, Advocate for the respondents. 2. The respondent/plaintiff had instituted a suit for possession against the appellant/defendant for possession of the suit property. It was the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that defendant was occupying the premises in question under the licence from plaintiff. It was agreed that the defendant would pay the taxes and continue to be in occupation. The plaintiff sought possession by filing a suit. The defendant/appellant resisted the suit saying that an unregistered sale-deed has been executed in his 2 favour and he is therefore entitled to retain the possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The courts below have concurrently held that the appellant/defendant is not entitled to protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court also found that the document said to be executed by the defendant is not genuine document and is forged document. Apart from that, it was also found that the appellant/ defendant was not entitled to protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contends that even where an unregistered sale-deed is executed, the provision of Section 53-A can be applied and the appellant/ defendant would be entitled to protect his possession since he has paid entire consideration of Rs.4000/-. The submission has no force. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act can be applied in cases where the defendant claims to be put in possession under an agreement of sale. The document in question admittedly is an unregistered sale-deed. Therefore, the defendant was not put in possession and cannot be said to be in possession under part performance of the contract, but he claimed to be in possession as an owner. The unregistered document does not transfer any right, title or interest in the property. The courts below 3 have rightly appreciated the evidence. I do not see any substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. pzc