ARTICLES OF AN ADVOCATE: It is true that the doctrine does not confer any title on the person who took possession of the property in part performance of a written contract of sale, but it affords protection to the person against the transferor or any person claiming under him. In the instant case, admittedly, the plaintiff obtained possession of the schedule mentioned land in part performance of Ex.A.1- agreement to sell, dated 30.7.1985. Merely because the suit for specific performance of contract is barred by limitation, it cannot be said that he has not been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The very fact that he paid the entire sale consideration indicates that there was nothing remained to be performed on his part. The plaintiff has not only a right to defend his possession in an action brought by the transferor or any person claiming under him, he can also institute a suit for injunction for the purpose of protecting his possession. The trial court, therefore, obviously in error in holding that since the relief of specific performance of contract is not available to the plaintiff as it was barred by time, he is not entitled to protect his possession by filing a suit for permanent injunction against his transferors and the 4th defendant, who subsequently obtained ExB.19 sale deed from the defendants 2 and 3. Both the Courts have found concurrently that the 4th defendant is not a bona fide purchaser for value, without notice of Ex.A.1-agreement to sell. If that is so, the plaintiff can enforce his defence available to him under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act against his transferors as well as against the defendant No.4, who obtained the registered sale deed -Ex.B.19 from the defendants 2 and 3 and claiming rights through them. The defendants, therefore, in the circumstances, indicated hereinabove cannot resist the suit of permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is certainly entitled for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants, despite the fact that the suit for specific performance is dismissed being barred by limitation.