What is the core rule from this case?

Before 1929, part performance protected possession only with an enforceable contract and a suit for specific performance. Section 53A is not retrospective.

Can an unregistered sale agreement stop eviction?

No. An unregistered, unenforceable agreement cannot defeat the owner’s ejectment suit.

Does Section 53A apply to pre-1929 agreements?

No. Section 53A, added in 1929, is prospective and does not operate backward.

What should a buyer have done pre-1929 to seek protection?

He had to file for specific performance on an enforceable contract; mere possession was not enough.

What was the final outcome?

The Privy Council dismissed the appeal and confirmed possession for Mohammad Tahir.

Mian Pir Bux v. Sardar Mohammad Tahir

Case Snapshot

CASE_TITLE: Mian Pir Bux v. Sardar Mohammad Tahir, AIR 1934 PC 235
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 53A TPA, part performance, eviction defence
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: specific performance, unregistered sale, possession, Privy Council
PUBLISH_DATE: 01-11-2025
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India

Judgment gavel for Privy Council decision in 1934

```

Quick Summary

Before 1929, a buyer in possession could not block eviction just by saying “part performance.” He had to sue for specific performance on an enforceable contract. Section 53A (added in 1929) protects possession, but it does not work backward. So, Pir Bux could not use an old, unregistered sale agreement to resist eviction.

Issues

Can part performance be used as a defence to avoid eviction under an unregistered sale agreement?
Does possession under an invalid or unenforceable sale agreement protect against eviction?
Does Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act apply to pre-1929 agreements?

Rules

Pre-1929: Part performance could protect possession only if the defendant sought specific performance of an enforceable contract.
Section 53A (1929): Shields possession under part performance, but does not apply retroactively.
Unregistered/unenforceable sale agreements cannot defeat a true owner’s ejectment suit.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic for land grant and litigation steps

1919: Both parties apply for the same plot at New Sukkur.

Grant: Collector divides land—north to Pir Bux; south to Mohammad Tahir; instruments executed.

Claim: Pir Bux asserts possession of the southern half via an unregistered sale agreement.

Suit: Mohammad Tahir sues for declaration and possession of the southern half.

Trial Court: Dismisses suit; accepts defendant’s part performance defence.

Appellate Court (Sind): Reverses; unregistered, unenforceable contract gives no defence; decrees possession to plaintiff.

Privy Council: Appeal by Pir Bux; core questions on part performance and Section 53A.

Arguments

Appellant (Pir Bux)

In possession under sale agreement; should be protected by part performance.
Equity should stop eviction since possession is referable to the contract.

Respondent (Mohammad Tahir)

Agreement is unregistered/unenforceable; cannot block ejectment.
Section 53A (1929) is prospective; contract predates it.

Judgment

Held: Appeal dismissed. Decree for possession in favour of Mohammad Tahir affirmed.

Pre-1929 law required an enforceable contract and a suit for specific performance; neither existed here.
Section 53A does not apply to agreements made before 1929; no retroactive protection.
Defendant’s possession under an invalid sale agreement could not defeat ejectment.

Ratio Decidendi

Part performance protects possession only when an enforceable contract exists and the buyer seeks specific performance; Section 53A, introduced in 1929, is not retrospective.

Why It Matters

Clarifies the boundary between equity and statute in property transfers.
Sets the exam-friendly rule: Section 53A is prospective only.
Shows that mere possession under a flawed contract does not beat the true owner.

Key Takeaways

No retroactivity: Section 53A does not cover pre-1929 contracts.
Need enforcement: Without specific performance, part performance cannot shield possession.
Registration matters: Unregistered/unenforceable agreements fail against ejectment.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “PRE-29? NO SHIELD.”

Pre-1929 contract—statutory shield not available.
Enforce it—must sue for specific performance.
No deed + no suit = eviction stands.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Can possession under an unregistered, pre-1929 sale agreement block eviction via part performance?
Rule	Pre-1929: protection only with enforceable contract + suit for specific performance; Section 53A is not retrospective.
Application	Defendant relied on an unenforceable agreement and did not seek specific performance—so no protection.
Conclusion	Eviction decree sustained; appeal dismissed.

Glossary

Part Performance: Equitable idea: acts done under a contract may justify protection of possession.
Section 53A TPA: Statutory shield (from 1929) preventing transferor from evicting transferee in part performance.
Specific Performance: Court order directing a party to perform the contract as promised.