MOOLCHAND BAKHRU vs ROHAN

The Supreme Court addressed whether a proposed vendee can protect possession of immovable property under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act based on an oral agreement not reduced to writing. The Court held that for the plea of part performance to be valid, the agreement must be in writing, thus establishing that oral agreements cannot confer such protection. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision that the respondents did not have a valid claim under Section 53-A due to the absence of a written agreement.