What is Section 53A (part performance) in simple words?

It protects a transferee who has a written contract and possession taken in furtherance of that contract and shows readiness to perform. Courts then stop the owner from going back on the deal.

Does payment of money count as part performance?

No. Payment is an equivocal act and is recoverable. It does not prove a sale contract by itself for Section 53A protection.

Is continued possession enough for a mortgagee?

No. If the mortgagee was already in possession before the contract, simply staying in possession is not an act in furtherance of the later contract.

Is an unregistered sale deed enough to claim Section 53A?

No. The Court required a written contract and acts in furtherance like possession under that contract, not just an unregistered draft.

What relief did the Supreme Court finally grant?

It restored the trial court’s decision, denied Section 53A protection to the mortgagee, and clarified that the auction purchaser’s rights were limited to the decretal amount.

Law Easy

02 November, 2025

301

Sardar Govindrao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai Explained | Section 53A Part Performance | The Law Easy

Sardar Govindrao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai

AIR 1982 SC 989 — Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court 1982 3-Judge Bench AIR 1982 SC 989 Property Law (TPA) 7 min read

Gulzar Hashmi 2025-11-01 India Section 53A, Part Performance Unregistered Deed, Mortgagee Possession sardar-govindrao-mahadik-v-devi-sahai

Quick Summary

In this case, the Supreme Court explained when the Doctrine of Part Performance (Section 53A, TPA) protects a transferee. The mortgagee relied on an unregistered sale deed and his continued possession to block redemption. The Court said: payment alone is not enough, and staying in possession as a mortgagee is not an act “in furtherance” of a later sale contract. Result: no Section 53A shield; the trial court’s view was restored.

Issues

Can an unregistered sale deed give the mortgagee protection under Section 53A?
Does a mortgagee’s continued possession count as an act in furtherance of part performance?
Is payment of ₹1,000 for stamp/registration an act of part performance?

Rules

Section 53A applies only if there is a written contract, possession in furtherance of that contract, and readiness to perform.
Payment alone is an equivocal act and does not prove part performance; money can be recovered.
Acts done before the contract are not “in furtherance” of the contract.

So, mere continued possession as a mortgagee or pre-contract payments do not qualify.

Facts (Timeline)

Property was mortgaged with possession to the respondent (mortgagee).

A draft sale deed was prepared but stayed unregistered.

The mortgagor later sold the property to a third party.

Mortgagor and purchaser sued the mortgagee for redemption.

Trial court: no Section 53A shield; High Court: reversed and protected the mortgagee.

Supreme Court heard the appeal to settle Section 53A requirements.

Arguments

Appellant (Mortgagor / Auction Purchaser)

Unregistered sale deed cannot trigger Section 53A.
Mortgagee’s possession existed before the alleged sale contract.
₹1,000 payment is not part performance; it is recoverable money.
Redemption must proceed; mortgagee cannot block using 53A.

Respondent (Mortgagee)

Draft sale deed plus possession = protection under 53A.
Paid ₹1,000 towards stamp/registration; shows readiness.
Equity favors the person in possession.

Judgment

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court and restored the trial court’s decree. To use Section 53A, a transferee must prove: (1) a valid written contract, (2) possession taken in furtherance of that contract, and (3) performance or readiness to perform obligations. Here, the mortgagee’s possession was from the mortgage, not from the sale contract. Payment of ₹1,000 was only a monetary step and happened before the sale; it did not count as part performance. The Court also clarified that the auction purchaser could recover only the decretal amount, not the entire property.

Ratio

Possession must flow from the contract relied on for Section 53A.
Equivocal acts like payments do not satisfy “part performance.”
Pre-contract acts cannot be “in furtherance” of the contract.

Why It Matters

This ruling draws a firm line for Section 53A: only concrete, post-contract acts that are tied to the contract will get protection. It prevents misuse of old possession or small payments to stall redemption and ensures certainty in property transactions.

Key Takeaways

Unregistered draft + old possession ≠ Section 53A shield.
Payments are reversible; they do not prove part performance.
Acts must be after and because of the contract.
Mortgagee cannot block redemption using pre-existing possession.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: W-P-R — Written contract, Possession in furtherance, Readiness to perform.

Show the paper (written contract).
Show the change (possession because of that paper).
Show your promise (ready to perform).

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can an unregistered sale deed and continued mortgagee possession secure Section 53A protection?

Rule: Written contract + possession in furtherance + readiness to perform; payment alone is not enough; pre-contract acts do not count.

Application: Possession came from the mortgage, not from the sale contract; ₹1,000 payment is equivocal and recoverable.

Conclusion: Section 53A protection denied; trial court’s decision restored.

Glossary

Part Performance (53A): Shield for a transferee who acts on a written contract, takes possession under it, and is ready to perform.
Equivocal Act: An act (like paying money) that can be explained in many ways; not proof of performance.
Redemption: Right of the mortgagor to get back the property by paying the mortgage debt.

FAQs

Because the mortgagee failed to show that possession flowed from that contract. The deed was unregistered and there was no qualifying act in furtherance.

Yes. The transferee must either perform or show clear readiness and willingness. Without it, Section 53A cannot be used.

The Court limited the auction purchaser to recovering the decretal amount, not absolute ownership of the property.

Comment

Nothing for now