Category: General Rules of Transfer

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.

ISSUE:

Whether the settlement deed created a vested interest in favour of Varadan (settle) during the lifetime of the settlor (Kokilambal) or was the vesting contingent upon the settlor's death?

Whether Kokilambal retained the right to revoke the settlement deed and execute fresh settlement deeds after Varadan’s death?

RULE:

If the interest conferred in a settlement deed is contingent upon certain conditions or retains elements of control for the settlor, the beneficiary does not acquire absolute rights.

A contingent interest depends on the occurrence of a specified future event.

The intention of the settlor must be determined by reading the settlement deed as a whole.

ISSUE:

Whether the security bond was validly attested under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”)?

Whether the decree by the High Court created a valid charge on the properties?

Whether the respondents were entitled to rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code?

RULE:

For a valid attestation, the witnesses must sign with the intent (animus attestandi) to attest the execution of the document.

Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 requires a document to be attested by at least two witnesses, each of whom has seen the executant sign or received a personal acknowledgement from the executant.

ISSUE:

Whether the right to redeem the mortgages still existed after a compromise agreement between the parties?

Whether the compromise agreement, though not formalized by a written conveyance, effectively extinguished the equity of redemption?

RULE:

The equity of redemption, inherent in mortgages, can be extinguished by an agreement between the parties that is acted upon and accepted for an extended period.

ISSUE:

Whether Pir Bux (the defendant) could use part performance as a defence to avoid eviction under an unregistered sale agreement?

Whether possession based on an invalid or unenforceable sale agreement can protect the defendant from eviction?

Whether Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act applies to agreements made before it was introduced in 1929

RULE:

The Privy Council ruled that before 1929, part performance could only protect possession if the defendant actively sought to enforce the contract through specific performance.

Additionally, Section 53A, introduced in 1929 to protect possession under part performance, did not apply to contracts made before that year, leaving Pir Bux without a valid defense.

This case clarified that the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A does not apply retroactively and highlighted the limitations of possession as a defence under pre-amendment law.

ISSUE:

Whether a debtor's transfer of property to one creditor to satisfy debts can be invalidated as fraudulent under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?

RULE:

A debtor can prioritize repayment of one creditor over another as long as it is for the satisfaction of genuine debts and not for the benefit of the debtor.

ISSUE:

Whether the document titled as a "Settlement Deed" executed by the settlor was a settlement or a will under the Transfer of Property?

Whether the settlor, after executing the "Settlement Deed," retained the right to revoke or alter it?

Whether allegations of fraud or misrepresentation in the execution of the "Settlement Deed" are substantiated?

RULE:

A settlement creates an interest in the property in praesenti (immediate effect), while a will is ambulatory and revocable during the lifetime of the testator, taking effect only upon their death.

A vested interest is created immediately and remains unaffected by the death of the transferee, while a contingent interest arises only upon the occurrence of an uncertain future event.

The burden of proof lies on the party alleging fraud or misrepresentation.

ISSUE:

Whether the transfer of property without proper legal compliance can vest ownership rights in the transferee?

Whether possession under such a transfer can be legally protected against claims of rightful titleholders?

RULE:

Ownership and title transfer must comply with legal formalities, including proper registration as mandated by property laws.

Consent must be free from fraud, coercion, or undue influence, as per the principles enshrined in contract law.

The party asserting the validity of the transfer bears the burden of establishing its genuineness when challenged.

ISSUE:

Whether a transfer of property for the benefit of an unborn person is valid when it includes a life interest for the unborn person?

Whether subsequent provisions in the same deed that depend on an invalid transfer take effect?

Whether the transfer violated Section 13 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TP Act”), by failing to convey absolute interest to the unborn person?

RULE:

Section 13 states that property transferred to an unborn person must give them full ownership without any restrictions or conditions.

Limited rights in respect of property, such as a life interest, cannot be given to unborn persons under the framework of the TP Act.

Further transfer of property depending on such invalid transfer of life interest in favour of unborn persons is also void.

ISSUE:

Whether Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TP Act”), applies when a transfer is made by someone with only spes successionis (mere expectation of inheritance) at the time of transfer?

Whether a later acquisition of property by the transferor validates an earlier transfer made on the basis of misrepresented ownership?

Whether Section 6(a) of the TP Act, which prohibits transfers of spes successionis, is in conflict with Section 43 in cases of misrepresentation?

RULE:

When someone falsely claims to own property and transfers it for consideration, while they only have spes successionis, the sale can become valid if they later inherit or acquire that property, provided the transferee acted in good faith.

The initial transfer may have been invalid because the seller had no right to sell at the time, but fairness demands that once the transferor gains ownership, the transferee’s claim is protected.