Dismissed¶¶22

Vinod S/O Namdeorao Ganvir v. Shri Pramod Namdeorao Ganvir and Others

Bombay HC5 Dec 2025SA/323/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition – second appeal dismissed – S.53-A Transfer of Property Act 1882 protection unavailable – 1996 oral agreement confers no right (S.54 TPA) – unregistered notarized agreement dated 07.11.2002 post-dating 24.09.2001 amendment (Act No.48 of 2001) and S.17(1A) Registration Act ineffective for S.53-A – no substantial question of law – Bombay HC Nagpur Bench – Rohit W. Joshi, J. – 05.12.2025 – Second Appeal No.323 of 2021 – Vinod Namdeorao Ganvir v. Pramod Namdeorao Ganvir.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; second appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶¶22

Vinod S/O Namdeorao Ganvir Vs Shri Pramod Namdeorao Ganvir and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; second appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/original defendant No.4 is entitled to protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on the basis of the alleged oral agreement of 1996 and/or the notarized but unregistered agreement dated 07.11.2002. +1 more

¶¶16

Court's answer

An oral/unregistered agreement cannot confer any right in favour of defendant No.4 in the suit property in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

Protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be claimed on the basis of the alleged oral agreement of the year 1996, since it is an oral agreement.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

After the amendment of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act by Act No.48 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001 and the introduction of Section 17(1A) in the Registration Act, an unregistered agreement of sale executed on or after 24.09.2001 has no effect for the purposes of Section 53-A; hence defendant No.4 cannot claim Section 53-A protection on the basis of the unregistered agreement dated 07.11.2002.ratio¶¶21
No substantial question of law arises for consideration; consequently the second appeal is dismissed.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench) against concurrent decrees for partition and separate possession. Appellant, original defendant No.4, resisted partition claiming protection under S.53-A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on the strength of an alleged oral agreement of sale of 1996 and a notarized but unregistered agreement recording delivery of possession dated 07.11.2002. Held: (i) an oral/unregistered agreement confers no right in immovable property, S.54, Transfer of Property Act; (ii) no S.53-A protection can be founded on the 1996 oral agreement; (iii) following the amendment of S.53-A by Act No.48 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001 and insertion of S.17(1A), Registration Act, an unregistered agreement executed on or after 24.09.2001 has no effect for S.53-A purposes, so the unregistered agreement dated 07.11.2002 affords no protection. No substantial question of law arises; appeal dismissed with no order as to costs (Rohit W. Joshi, J.; 05.12.2025).

¶1

¶2

39..odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.323 OF 2021

¶5

Vinod Namdeorao Ganvir Vs. Shri Pramod Namdeorao Ganvir and ors.

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶7

Mr. U. K. Bisen, Advocate for appellant.

¶8

Mr. S. S. Chopde, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶9

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 05.12.2025.

¶10

. The present Second Appeal is filed against concurrent decrees for partition and separate possession. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are real brothers and defendant No.1 is their mother.

¶11

The suit property comprises of residential house, which was purchased by late Namdeorao (father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4 and husband of defendant No.1) vide registered Sale Deed dated 03.01.2011.

¶12

The defence of the present appellant, who is the original defendant No.4, is that the vendor/father had entered into oral agreement of sale with respect to suit property in his favour in the year 1996 and that on 07.11.2002, a notarized agreement recording delivery of possession was executed between vendor/father and defendant No.4.

¶13

The learned Advocate for the appellant-defendant No.4 contends that defendant No.4 is entitled to protect

¶14

¶15

39..odt

¶16

his possession over the suit property as per Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, “the Act”).

¶17

As regards the oral agreement, the same cannot confer any right in favour of defendant No.4 in the suit property in view of Section 54 of the Act, transfer of immovable property by an unregistered and oral agreement.

¶18

As regards Section 53-A of the Act, the alleged agreement of the year 1996 is an oral agreement and on the basis of which protection under Section 53-A of the Act, cannot be claimed.

¶19

As regards the subsequent agreement dated 07.11.2002, admittedly the said document is not a registered document. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act came to be amended by Act No.48 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001, whereby the words “the contract, though required to be registered, has not been registered, or” came to be omitted. Likewise, Section 17(1A) also came to be introduced in the Registration Act by the said Act w.e.f. 24.09.2001. Section 17(1A) provides that an un-registered agreement of sale executed on or after 24.09.2001 shall have no effect for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The alleged subsequent agreement in question is dated 07.11.2002, which is an un-registered document. In view of amendment to Section 53-A of the Transfer of

¶20

3 39..odt

¶21

Property Act and introduction of Section 17(1A) in the Registration Act, defendant no.4 cannot claim the protection of Section 53-A of the Act on the basis of the said agreement, since it is an un-registered document.

¶22

In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶23

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

¶24

Tanmay...

Vinod S/O Namdeorao Ganvir v. Shri Pramod Namdeorao Ganvir and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod S/O Namdeorao Ganvir v. Shri Pramod Namdeorao Ganvir and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Bhaskarrao S/O Urkudaji Waghmare (Dead) Smt. Manorama Wd/O Bhaskarrao Waghmare and Others Vs Narayan S/O Ganpatrao Mayawade

Laxmanrao Hanumantrao Baitalwar (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Sushila Wd/O Laxmanrao Baitalwar and Ors. Vs Karunabai N. Karmarkar (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Nandkishor S/O Rajaram Karmarkar and Others

Kalimulla Ajimulla vs Shri. Hitesh S/O. Mathuradas Kariya

Govinda Madhav Kale and Others vs Hiraji S/O Madhav Kale

Bhaurao S/O Maroti Elkewar (Dead) Thr. Lrs.Chandrakant S/O Bhaurao Elkewar vs Shantabai Krishnamurty Tripathi (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Yogesh S/O Krishnamurty Tripathi and Another

Kisan S/O Sampatrao Belsare vs Shakuntala Wd/O Sudamrao Belsare and Others