LANDMARK JUDGEMENT ON TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BY ACT OF PARTIES

PRELIMINARY

CASE NAME

HELD

1.       Shanti Bai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 532

The Supreme Court distinguished between "trees" (immovable property) and "standing timber" (movable property) as If the intention of the owner regarding a tree is to maintain its life, it falls under the category of a tree; however, if the intention is to eventually cut it for timber purposes, it is classified as standing timber (movable).

2.       Municipal Corporation Bombay v. Lala Pancham, AIR 1965 SC 1008

The Supreme Court held that the rights of a tenant or lessee concerning the enjoyment of property are considered "immovable property" i.e., Rights stemming from leases or tenancies are considered immovable property.

3.       Santosh Jaiswal v. State of M.P., AIR 1996 SC 207

The Supreme Court held that a right of fishery is immovable property because it is a "profit à prendre" and a "benefit to arise out of land".

4.       Mahadeo v. State of Bombay (AIR 1959 SC)

The Supreme Court held that the rights to collect forest produce, like tendu leaves, and to use soil for brick-making are proprietary rights and are therefore considered immovable property.

5.       Jugal Kishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd, AIR 1955 SC 376

The Supreme Court held that a future decree, which does not yet exist, cannot be the subject of a present transfer or assignment, and therefore cannot be considered an actionable claim within the meaning of the law at the time of the transfer.

6.       Ram Niwas v. Bano, AIR 2000 SC 2921

The doctrine of constructive notice applies when a plaintiff is in actual possession of property, and the term "notice" is broader than "knowledge"; meaning a purchaser is considered to have notice of a claim if they should have reasonably investigated the title of someone in possession, even if they didn't have direct knowledge of it.

7.       Daya Devi v. Chapla Devi, AIR 1960 Cal. 378

The Calcutta High Court held that outstanding rent arrears, upon assignment to a third party, lose their character as "rent" and transform into an "actionable claim" under the Transfer of Property Act, making them legally assignable.

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BY ACT OF PARTIES

8.       V.N. Sarin v. Ajeet Kumar, AIR 1966 SC 432

The Supreme Court of India held that partition of property is not considered a "transfer of property" under the legal framework.

9.       Muhammad Raza v. Abbas Bandi Bibi, AIR 1932 P.C. 158

The court held that a restriction on transferring property to "strangers" (individuals outside the family) was a partial restraint on alienation, not an absolute one. Therefore, it was valid and enforceable under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, as the transferee remained free to transfer the property to any family member.

10.   Girijesh Dutta v. Data Din, AIR 1934 Oudh 35

The court applied Section 16 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This established the principle that if a prior interest in a property transfer fails under Section 13 (transfer for the benefit of an unborn person) or Section 14 (rule against perpetuity), any subsequent interest created in the same transaction that is dependent on that prior interest will also fail.

11.   Tulk v. Moxhay (1848)41 E.R. 1143

This is a landmark legal decision that established that such covenants can be enforced against subsequent purchasers of the land if they had notice of the restriction, a concept known as the covenant "running with the land" in equity.

12.   Jaya Dayal Poddar v. Bibi Hazara, AIR 1974 SC 171

The Supreme Court held that determining whether a person is an "ostensible owner" is a subjective matter that depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The Court established key guiding principles to assess benami transactions, including evaluating the source of the purchase money, the nature of possession and custody of title deeds, the motive for the transaction, and the conduct of the parties involved.  

13.   Musahur Sahu v. Hakimlal, (1950)43 Cal. 521

The court established that a debtor's transfer of property to one creditor in preference to others does not automatically constitute a fraudulent transfer under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

14.   Prabodh Kumar Das v. Dantamara Tea Co. Ltd, AIR 1940 P.C.L

The Privy Council established the principle that the protection offered by Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is a "shield" and not a "sword". This means a transferee in possession under an unregistered contract can use the section as a defense to protect their possession but cannot actively enforce their title as a plaintiff.

15.   Pandit Chunchun Jha v. Sheikh Ibadat Ali AIR 1954 SC 345

The Supreme Court ruled that if the condition of repurchase is not explicitly stated in the mortgage document, the transaction cannot be classified as a mortgage.

16.   Kreglinger v. New Patagonia Meat & Cold Storage Comp. Ltd, (1914) AC. 25

A collateral benefit is an advantage secured by the mortgagee beyond the normal repayment of principal and interest, which is not necessarily a clog on the equity of redemption. For a collateral benefit to be a clog (and thus invalid), it must be both unfair or unconscionable and an intrinsic part of the mortgage transaction itself, rather than an independent, commercially reasonable agreement.

17.   Anand Behra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1956 SC 17

The Supreme Court ruled that the right to catch and carry away fish from Chilika Lake, obtained by an agreement with a former proprietor, was a profit a prendre and thus immovable property as defined by the General Clauses Act.

18.   Ram Bhawan Singh v. Jagdish, (1990) 4 SCC 309

This case affirmed the principle of "feeding the grant by estoppel," which is codified in Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court held that if a person with a limited interest transfers a larger interest in a property by misrepresentation, and later acquires that larger interest, the transferee has the option to enforce the transfer.

19.   Kartar Singh v. Harbans Kaur, (1994) 4 SCC 730

The Supreme Court of India ruled that Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, cannot be invoked if the transferee had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect in the transferor's title. The court emphasized that the benefit of Section 43 is only available to a transferee who has been genuinely misled by a fraudulent or erroneous representation.

20.   Whitby v. Mitchell (1890) 4 Ch. D. 85

The court confirmed the "rule against double possibilities," which prohibited successive life estates to unborn persons. The principle states that while a life interest may be granted to an unborn person, a further life interest cannot be granted to the descendants of that unborn person.

21.   Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami, AIR 1973 SC 569

The Supreme Court held that a voluntary, private sale of joint family property by a Karta during a pending partition suit is invalid under the doctrine of lis pendens (Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act) and does not bind the other family members because it was not a transaction necessitated by the suit itself, nor was it a sale in execution of a decree.

22.   Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259

The Supreme Court held that a person can only transfer a right, title, or interest in tangible property that they actually possess; if the seller did not have a substantial interest in the property at the time of sale, the buyer would not acquire any rights, and the transfer would be considered illegal and void.  

23.   Sridhar v. N. Revanna, (2020) 11 SCC 221

The Supreme Court clarified that for Section 13 of the Transfer of Property Act to apply, the property transfer must be directly intended to create an interest for an unborn person, not just contain conditions for potential future generations. The case involved a gift to a living minor, where the conditions for unborn individuals were separate from the initial transfer, making Section 13 inapplicable.

24.   Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366

The Supreme Court ruled that the full payment of the sale price is not a pre-condition for the completion of a sale. A sale deed can be legally registered even with partial payment, which transfers the title to the buyer. The seller's remedy for non-payment of the remaining balance is to sue for the recovery of the unpaid amount, not to cancel the sale deed.

25.   Siri Chand v. Surinder Singh, (2020) 6 SCC 288

The Supreme Court ruled that when a lease deed has no specified tenancy period, the true nature of the lease must be determined by the parties' intentions and other conditions in the deed. In this particular case, the court determined that the lease was a monthly tenancy and did not require mandatory registration under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908.

26.   Nand Ram v. Jagdish Prasad, (2020) 9 SCC 393

The Supreme Court clarified the legal status of a lessee who overstays their lease term without the lessor's consent. This status, known as a "tenant at sufferance," is distinct from both a regular tenant and a trespasser.

27.   Prakash (Dead) By LR. v. G. Aradhya & Ors (2023)

The Indian Supreme Court affirmed that a transaction is a mortgage by conditional sale only if the condition for reconveyance (the right to buy back) is included within the same document as the sale. If separate documents are executed for the sale and the reconveyance, the transaction is considered an absolute sale, not a mortgage.

28.   Shivashankara v. H,P. Vedavyasa Char (2023)

The Supreme Court affirmed that the doctrine of lis pendens applies even when Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act doesn't fit strictly, based on "justice, equity, and good conscience". This means a transfer of property or possession during a lawsuit, intended to defeat the other party's interest, is invalid (non-est) in the eyes of the law.