Author: admin

ISSUE:

Whether the suit property purchased by the plaintiff was misled, fraudulent and erroneous made by the transferor, lead to the cancellation of sale deed?

RULE:

If at the time of transfer, the vendor might have defective title or have no title or no right or interest, however subsequently the transferor acquires the right, title, or interest and the contract of transfer subsists, such a transfer is valid. In such a situation, the transferor cannot be permitted to challenge the transfer and the transferor has no option to raise the dispute in making the transfer.

The intention of Section 43 of TP Act is based on the principle of estoppel as well as equity. The intention seems to be that after procuring money and transferring the land, thereafter the transferor is estopped from saying that though he has sold the land on payment of sale consideration, still the transfer is not binding on him.
That is why Section 43 gives an option to the transferee and not the transferor.

ISSUE:

Whether there is a binding principal in the absence of an authority to sell?

Whether there could be a cancellation of alienations setting aside of documents of transfer of property, under the section 3, 7, 8, 54 and 41 of the Transfer of the Property Act?

RULE:

One is that the alienees as well as the co-sharer are still entitled to sustain the alienation to the extent of the share of the co-sharer. It may also open to the alienee, in the final decree proceedings, to seek the allotment of the transferred property to the share of the transferor, so that the equities are worked out in a fair manner.

ISSUE:

Whether the Appellant (who is the wife of B. N. Subbarao) entitled to the one-fifth share in the properties mentioned in the Will of her deceased father-in-law?

Whether the interest created is a vested or a contingent interest, defined in Section 19 and 21 of The Transfer of Property Act?

RULE:

For the purpose of determining the date of vesting of the interest in the bequest, it is necessary to bear in mind about the distinction between a vested interest and the contingent interest.

An interest is said to vested interest when there is immediate right of present enjoyment or a present right for future enjoyment. Whereas, an interest is said to be contingent if the right of enjoyment is made dependent upon some event or condition that may or may not happen.

On the happening of the event or condition, a contingent interest becomes a vested interest.

ISSUE:

Whether the original defendant was entitled to avail protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act?

Whether the Appellant was the title-holder to the suit property?

RULE:

The predecessor-in-interest or the respondents had not taken recourse to law for specific performance of the agreement. This assumes importance in view of the averment made in the written statement that even prior to the demise of the predecessor-in-interest.

Further, the predecessor-in-interest did not comply with the requests of the original defendant to get the sale deed executed and his legal heirs after his demise and also adopted the same non-cooperative stance.