ISSUE:
Whether Pir Bux (the defendant) could use part performance as a defence to avoid eviction under an unregistered sale agreement?
Whether possession based on an invalid or unenforceable sale agreement can protect the defendant from eviction?
Whether Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act applies to agreements made before it was introduced in 1929
RULE:
The Privy Council ruled that before 1929, part performance could only protect possession if the defendant actively sought to enforce the contract through specific performance.
Additionally, Section 53A, introduced in 1929 to protect possession under part performance, did not apply to contracts made before that year, leaving Pir Bux without a valid defense.
This case clarified that the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A does not apply retroactively and highlighted the limitations of possession as a defence under pre-amendment law.