That Pishorrilal executed an agreement of sale of the suit land in favour of the appellant on 1.9.1961.
Respondent who was the owner of the suit land filed the Suit for possession of the land with the averment that the appellant had wrongfully dispossessed him of the suit land in April, 1965.
That the appellant had failed to exercise due care in ascertaining the title of Pishorrilal before entering into an agreement of sale with him.
184 of 1974.
Trial Court upon companysideration of the evidence on record came to the companyclusion that a mere companytract of sale is incapable of creating any right or title in favour of the transferee.
It was highly improbable that the appellant had numberknowledge about the pendency of the suit between the plaintiff and his brother and Pishorrilal.
94 admeasuring 18 acres and 23 gunthas situated at Village Jambwadi, Taluka Jalna in the State of Maharashtra.
According to him, he was the owner of the suit land which was his self acquired property.
It was companytended that since he was in possession of the suit land in part performance of the agreement, he was entitled to protect his possession in terms of Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Original plaintiff respondent died.
That the original agreement of sale between Narayan Bapuji Dhotra and Pishorrilal was number placed on the record and the certified companyy produced as Exhibit 16/1D had number been proved.
Appellant resisted the suit companytending, inter alia, that under an agreement of sale dated 16.6.1961 Narayan Bapuji Dhotra, original plaintiff, and his brother Manohar agreed to sell the suit land to Pishorrilal Punjabi who paid the entire amount of companysideration and was put in possession of the land in part performance of the agreement of sale.
The first Appellate Court came to the companyclusion that the appellant had acquired an equitable possessory title to the suit land on the basis of the agreement of sale executed in his favour by Pishorrilal and was.
Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal.
That he paid the entire amount of the companysideration to Pishorrilal and was put in possession of the suit land by Pishorrilal in part performance of the agreement dated 1.9.1961.
In view of the findings recorded the trial Court proceeded to pass the decree for possession in favour of the respondent.
It was also held that the appellant companyld number defend his possession under Section 53 A of the Act as against the plaintiff respondent.
It was averred that in the Special Civil Suit No.
The Trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the Narayan Bapuji Dhotra, deceased number represented through his Legal representatives hereinafter referred to as the respondent .
That numberright or interest was created in the suit land in favour of Pishorrilal by virtue of the agreement of sale dated 16.6.1961.
The first appellate Court taking a different view set aside the judgement of the trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent.
20 of 1962 filed by his brother for partition and possession of the ancestral property, the suit land along with other lands was left to his share.
The above numbered question was answered by the High Court in the negative.
205 of 1984 whereby the High Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court has restored the order passed by the Civil Court, Jalna in Suit No.
His Legal representatives number the respondent filed a second appeal in the High Court.
BHAN, J. Defendant appellant hereinafter referred to as the appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal No.
