JUDGMENT
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.
1. These two appeals are filed by the defendants in the suit. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit — O. S. No. 43 of 1996 before the Subordinate Judge. Ramachandrapuram, for specific performance of an agreement for sale. He also filed I.A. No. 532 of 1996 for temporary injunction pending the suit.
The appellants also filed another I. A. No. 493/97 for appointment of Receiver. The lower Court allowed I.A. No. 532/96, while dismissing I.A. No. 493/96. Hence, the unsuccessful defendants filed these two appeals. As the lower Court has disposed of both the applications under a common order, we oo dispose of both the appeals by a common order for the sake of convenience.
2. Appellants Nos. I and 2 are the Leprosy Mission, New Delhi, and a branch of the Mission situated at Ramachandrapuram respectively. The Mission offered to dispose an extent of Ac 3.50 cents approximately belonging to it and for that purpose a publication was made in local news papers on 11-6-1995 calling for offers. The re-spondent submitted his offer at the rate of Rs. 2,25,000.90 per acre. The appellants by their letter dated 22-9-1995 informed the respondent about their acceptance of the offer and asked him to remit ten percent of the total value as advance. Tn response to the said letter, the respondent sent ten percent advance on 6-10-1995. However, in the month of November, 1995, the respondent informed the appellants that he is ready to pay the balance and that he would take possession. The appellants informed him, by their letter dated 1-12-1995 that the respondent should not be in to hurry take over the possession. However, the respondent has taken possession in December, 1995, itself.
3. The case of the respondent is that possession was delivered to him. The lower Court accepting the contention of the respondent allowed his application for injunction and dismissed the application of the appellants for appointment of Receiver.
4. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act contemplates a contract in writing and delivery of possession in pursuance of the said contract. On satisfying these two conditions, the plaintiff can institute a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale and seek protection of his possession. But in this case, there is not even a scrap of paper to show that the respondent was delivered possession by the appellants at any lime. In fact there is no written contract which has come into existence. In the absence of any written contract, Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be taken aid of by the respondent. We may also observe that the respondent has not even furnished the date on which the possession was delivered to him in his affidavit or the persons who have delivered possession. As the appellants is a registered institution, we are of the opinion that unless possession was delivered by a person authorised by the institution, it cannot be a valid possession under law. Therefore, il follows that the respondent cannot claim injunction against the real owner. As such the order of the lower Court granting injunction has to be set aside.
5. In the circumstances, we would have allowed the application I.A. No. 493/96 and appointed a Receiver, but for the offer made by Sri M.S. K. Sastry, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, which is quite reasonable.
6. Accordingly we direct (i) the Commissioner, who was already appointed, to take the measurements of the land and determine the extent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (ii) on such determination by the Commissioner, the respondent shall deposit the balance sale consideration payable by him at the rate of Rs. 2,25,000-90 per acre after deducting the amount of Rs. 6,50,002-70 already deposited, including the advance of ten percent within a period of eight weeks thereafter, as requested by the learned counsel; for the respondent (iii) the appellants are entitled to withdraw the amount as and when deposited, including the amount of Rs. 6,50,002.70, already deposited; and (iv) On deposit of the balance amount, the appellants would execute a registered sale-deed at the expenses of the respondent with correct survey numbers.
7. Sri M.S.K. Sastry, learned senior counsel further submits that since it is found by this Court that the respondent had usurped possession and cultivated the land unauthorisedly during the years 1996, 1997 and 1998, the appellants are entitled to damages till the date of execution of the registered sale deed. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the lower Court will appoint a Commissioner to determine the profits and pass appropriate orders, if an application is filed by the appellants in this behalf. It is admitted that there is a standing crop in the land raised by the respondent. As we have indicated that it is a fit case for appointment of a Receiver, we direct the respondent to continue in possession of the land on condition of his depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000-00 per crop, for each of the first and second crops, by the end of May for the second crop and by the end of January for the first crop. In default a Receiver will be appointed by the lower Court.
8. Accordingly both the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.