A contract for the sale of Beauty Palace has been entered into between Karisma and Keshav. Keshav, the transferee has paid the price entering into possession and is willing to carry out his contractual obligation. As reg

The problem asked in the Question is related to the doctrine of part performance as given in Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The essential conditions to enforce the doctrine of are as follows: There must be a contract to transfer immoveable property. It must be for consideration. The contract should be in writing and signed by the transferor himself or on his behalf. The terms necessary to constitute the transfer must be ascertainable with reasonable certainty from the contract itself. The transferee should have taken the possession of the property in part performance of the contract. In cause he is already in possession, he must have continued in possession in part performance of the contract and must have done something in furtherance of the contract. The transferee must have fulfilled or be ready to fulfill his part of the obligation under the contract. If all the above mentioned conditions are satisfied, then, the transferor and the persons claiming under him are debarred form exercising any right in relation to the property other than the rights expressly provided by the terms of the contract notwithstanding the fact that the instrument of transfer has not been registered or complete in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for time being in force. It should be noted that Section 53A does not confer any positive right on the transferee. It only prohibits exercise of the right of ownership in relation to the property in order to evict the transferee from the property because legal requirements have not been satisfied. With the facts given in the question, Karisma, transferor, cannot seek to evict Keshav. In this case, a contract of sale of Beauty Palace has been entered into between the parties, Keshav, the transferee has paid the price entering into possession and is willing to carry out his contractual obligations. He cannot be evicted from the property from his possession simply because the formality of registration has not been through pursuant to the provisions of section 53A of this Act. The facts of this problem are related to the case Delhi Motor Co. vs. Basurkas as decided by Supreme Court.