The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is one of the primary statutes that govern Indian property law relating to the transfer of immovable and movable properties. Over time, a plethora of landmark cases have simplified and identified provisions of this act. Let’s have a look at some of the major cases in relation to the Transfer of Property Act:
Arif v. Jadunath (1931)
– Provisions Involved: Section 53A of Doctrine of Part Performance
– Facts: Under the concept of part performance, as agreed upon, the transferee had already taken possession of the property given to him.
Judgement : In so far as the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession and continues to hold the property, the transferor is estopped from asserting any right except what stands mentioned explicitly in the contract.
– Importance: This case actually instituted the doctrine of part performance in India, which safeguards the transferee even if the so-called formality of transfer is not observed.
Kalyanpur Lime Works Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1954)
– Provision Involved: Section 43 (Doctrine of Feeding the Grant by Estoppel)
– Facts: A transfer by a person who declared himself competent to make the transfer but was not so authorized when the transfer was made.
– Judgment: The Supreme Court further ruled that where a transfer is made by some person who fraudulently or mistakenly represents himself as having the title to property, and the transferor subsequently acquires title, the doctrine of estoppel will he invoked to carry the earlier transfer into confirmation.
– Importance: The case is the classic interpretation of Section 43 and reinforced the principle that subsequent acquisition of interest by the transferor would validate an earlier transfer if the doctrine of estoppel applies .
Har Narain v. Mam Chand (2003)
– Provision Involved: Section 54 (Sale of Immovable Property)
– Facts: The facts were that the sale involved immovable property, and yet it was not registered. Here, the plaintiff urged that the oral agreement coupled with the delivery of possession formed a valid sale.
-Judgement: The court declared that when immovable property is of an amount exceeding Rs. 100, the sale is required to be registered in the sale deed; mere delivery of possession is not enough for transfer.
Importance: This judgment reinforced the rule of compulsory registration of sale deeds for the transfer of ownership in immovable property. Hence it is not even legal ownership through mere possession.
Bajrang Chandraji v. Sita Ram Bader (1979)
– Provision Involved: Section 53 (Fraudulent Transfer)
– Facts: The case was a fraudulent transfer in the eyes of the law, passed to defeat the rights of creditors.
– Judgment: The court held that transfers made with actual intent to defraud creditors are held voidable at the instance of the creditor. This further solidified protections offered to creditors under the Transfer of Property Act.
– Importance: The judgment explained the principle behind fraudulent transfers and how such transfers might be challenged under Section 53.
Lalit Mohan Ghosh v. Gopal Chandra (1912)
Provision Involved: Section 41 (Transfer by Ostensible Owner)
Facts: There was an ostensible owner, with the consent of the real owner to deal with the property. He sold it to a third party.
– Judgment: On the facts of this case, the Privy Council held that where a man holds himself out as the owner with the consent of the real owner, a transfer by such a man would be good against the real owner if the transferee has acted in good faith and after taking reasonable care.
-Significance: The case rationalized the principle of law that where there was a transfer done by a ostensible owner it would be safeguarded under Section 41 provided that the transferee acted bona fide.
Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam and Anr. (1977)
– Provision Involved: Section 54 (Sale) and Section 60 (Right of Redemption)
– Facts: This was a case on the right of redemption of a mortgagor even after an agreement to sell has been executed by the mortgagee.
– Judgment: The Supreme Court held that execution of a sale agreement does not bar the right of redemption of a mortgagor unless a proper decree or a sale deed is effected.
– Value: This judgment only went on to reiterate that the right of redemption is one of the fundamental rights of the mortgagor and cannot be curtailed until the mortgagor has been lawfully dispossessed of the property.
Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (1996)
– Applicable Section: Section 53 (Fraudulent Transfer)
-Facts :The case was presented on the issue of fraudulent transfer of property to evade legal obligations along with defrauding creditors.
-Judgment:The Supreme Court proved that the fraudulent transfer may be set aside, and the valid provisions of Section 53 enforced to prevent undue enrichment by fraudulent means.
– Importance: This is one of the most cited cases for its understanding of a fraudulent transfer and the judicial approach towards an abuse of legal processes to further wrongful gain.
Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012)
– Applicable Provision: Section 54 (Sale of Property)
– Facts: This case involved the validity of sale agreements, power of attorney sales, and the general practice of using “GPA” (General Power of Attorney) to avoid proper registration of sale deeds.
– Judgment: Transfers of immovable property can only be made by a registered sale deed, the Supreme Court held, and decreed that “GPA sales” and agreements to sell, without registered deeds, do not affect valid transfers.
Landmark decisions – This judgment stopped the abuse of power of attorney sales, considering that only one mode under which an immovable property can be transferred is through a registered sale deed.
These landmark cases cleared up some provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Right protection was ensured by stopping all misuse of the law.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
