A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This Supreme Court decision in Sheth Maneklal Mansukbhai v. Messrs. Hormusji Jamshedji Ginwalla and Sons (1950 SCR 75) addresses the scope and applicability of the doctrine of part performance enshrined in Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The judgment reverses the decree of the Bombay High Court and upholds the applicability of Section 53-A, despite the absence of a formally executed and registered lease deed. The matter arose when the lessee’s predecessor-in-title entered into possession based on correspondence and subsequent government sanction for a permanent lease to establish a factory. The plaintiff-lessors, after years of accepting rent, sought to eject the lessee as a trespasser, citing the absence of a registered lease. The Supreme Court held that the continuous possession and rent payment under a written agreement constituted sufficient part performance to bar eviction under Section 53-A.

This landmark ruling underscores the equitable principle that a person who has acted on a written contract in furtherance of it should not be prejudiced by formal deficiencies like lack of registration, provided certain conditions are met. The judgment reaffirms the importance of good faith, fairness, and consistent conduct in real estate transactions, influencing property jurisprudence and protecting possessory interests grounded in equity.

Keywords: Doctrine of Part Performance, Section 53-A TPA, Equitable Estoppel, Lease without Registration, Government Sanctioned Lease, Property Law, Possessory Rights, Talukdari Settlement, Indian Property Jurisprudence, Equitable Relief

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Sheth Maneklal Mansukbhai v. Messrs. Hormusji Jamshedji Ginwalla and Sons

ii) Case Number:
Appeal No. XXXVII of 1949

iii) Judgement Date:
21st March 1950

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
SAIYID FAZL ALI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, and B.K. MUKHERJEA, JJ.

vi) Author:
Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan

vii) Citation:
AIR 1950 SC 1, 1950 SCR 75

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882

• Section 49, Indian Registration Act, 1908

• Sections 27-A, Specific Relief Act, 1877 (for reference)

• Bombay Act VI of 1888 – Gujarat Talukdars Act

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Second Appeal No. 717 of 1940 dated 9th March 1943 was reversed.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Property Law, Transfer of Property, Real Estate Transactions, Doctrines in Equity, Civil Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The origin of this litigation lies in a dispute over lease rights in a Talukdari estate under Government management, where a lessee had entered into possession of land based on a government-sanctioned lease agreement. However, the absence of a formally executed and registered lease deed led to claims by successors-in-interest that the lessee was a mere trespasser. This case presented a critical opportunity for the Supreme Court to interpret the application of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, which incorporates the equitable doctrine of part performance. The decision navigates issues concerning land possession, formal validity of property leases, and the binding nature of administrative correspondence between governmental authorities and lessees.

The dispute spanned nearly two decades through multiple court levels, highlighting procedural irregularities and the failure of parties to produce relevant evidence in a timely manner. The core legal issue revolved around whether a written agreement not registered as required under law, but performed upon by one party with rent payments and possession, could be protected against eviction using Section 53-A. The judgment clarifies both the scope of statutory equity in India and the relevance of formal documentation in real estate transactions.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, Sheth Maneklal Mansukbhai, acquired rights from a predecessor who had entered into possession of certain survey plots (Nos. 222, 223, 225, and 226) located in Rampura, Ahmedabad district. These plots formed part of a Talukdari estate under government management pursuant to the Gujarat Talukdars Act, 1888. In 1916, Shah Manilal Maganlal, a predecessor of the appellant, applied for a permanent lease of these lands to set up a ginning factory. The Talukdari Settlement Officer provisionally accepted the offer and forwarded it to the Bombay Government. On 5th September 1917, the Government formally sanctioned the lease.

The lessee took possession and constructed industrial infrastructure, including a ginning and pressing factory. Although no registered lease was executed, rent was paid and accepted for several years. In 1924, the defendant mortgagee acquired possessory rights through a mortgage deed from the original lessee. The plaintiffs (respondents) subsequently became ijaradars and accepted rent till 1932.

In 1933, the plaintiffs sued for ejectment, alleging that the absence of a registered lease rendered the defendant a trespasser. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the Assistant Judge reversed the decree citing Section 53-A, while the Bombay High Court again reversed it, holding that the documentary evidence was insufficient to establish a contract.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the correspondence and government resolution constituted a valid written contract for lease under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act?

ii) Whether the defendant could be treated as a trespasser due to lack of a registered lease deed?

iii) Whether acceptance of rent over several years constituted recognition of a lawful lease?

iv) Whether the defendant was entitled to protection against eviction under the doctrine of part performance?

v) Whether the lack of formal execution and registration barred enforceability of the lease?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The appellant was put into possession of the property under a written agreement, clearly sanctioned by the Government and signed by the Talukdari Settlement Officer. The possession, construction of factory, and payment of rent constituted part performance, thereby attracting Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

They further argued that the correspondence, culminating in a formal Government Resolution, qualified as an enforceable written agreement under Section 53-A. The plaintiffs themselves accepted rent for several years, thereby acknowledging the appellant’s lawful possession.

It was submitted that non-registration could not defeat rights acquired by the appellant based on equitable doctrines recognized under Indian law. The lessee fulfilled all obligations, and only the formal execution was pending. In such circumstances, equity must shield the defendant.

Reliance was placed on section 49 of the Registration Act, asserting that a non-registered document can be used to show part performance. Further, section 27-A of the Specific Relief Act, though prospective, reflected legislative intent to protect equitable leases.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The lease was never registered, hence not enforceable. Under the law, only registered leases confer legal tenancy rights exceeding one year. Without a valid lease deed, the possession of the defendant was unauthorized and could not be protected.

They contended that mere correspondence or a resolution could not substitute for a validly executed lease. No enforceable contract existed as per statutory requirements under the Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act. The plaintiffs had the right to eject a trespasser, and prior acceptance of rent was irrelevant without a valid lease.

The respondents challenged the admissibility of secondary evidence (Exhibit 181), stating that the original documents were not produced. They further argued that Section 53-A was not applicable due to the lack of clarity and certainty in the terms of the lease agreement.