8 Important Cases of Property Law

The article, '8 Important Cases of Property Law,' elucidates pivotal legal cases that have played a significant role in influencing the interpretation and application of the Transfer of Property Act. It offers valuable guidance on various aspects related to property law.

1. Girjesh Dutt v. Datadin, AIR 1934 Oudh 35

A gifted her properties to her nephew’s child B throughout life, followed by B’s male offspring, if she had any. However, in the lack of any possible male offspring of B, to B’s daughter without the power of alienation. and if B had no heirs male or female, then to A’s nephew. B died without having any children. It was held that the gift for a lifetime to B was legal because B was alive at the time of the transfer. Because it was a present of only limited interest, the gift in favour of B’s daughter became void under Section 13 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 13 prescribes that an interest created in favour of an unborn person should be an absolute interest.

2. Namdeo Lokman Lodhi v. Narmadabai and Others, 1953 AIR 228

In this case, the lessor filed a suit for ejectment against the lessee without providing him with written notice of his (the lessor’s) intent to terminate the lease. The Lessor’s lease determination, as per section 111(g) of the 1882 Transfer of Property Act, is not based on justice, equity, or good conscience and is not enforceable for leases entered before April 1, 1930. The court rejected the plaintiff’s contentions, but granted relief

The High Court upheld the lower court’s decision to allow the respondents ownership of land in exchange for the forfeiture of a lease. The question that arises here is that the issue to be decided is whether or not the High Court must have interfered in the lower court’s judgment in refusing relief contrary to forfeiture in the specific circumstances of this case.

Finally, the court raised its hands and ordered his ejection. In this case, the High Court was perfectly right in ruling that in the second appeal, it wouldn’t get involved with the lower court’s discretion in declining to give remedies against forfeiture.

The suit was maintainable and thus appeal was dismissed with costs.

3. Jumma Masjid v. Kodimaniandra AIR 1962 SC

The mentioned case talks about the difference that 6(a) holds with Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, of 1882. In the preceding case, a Hindu joint family of three brothers entered a usufructuary mortgage collectively. An usufructuary mortgage grants a legal right to use and draw revenue from another party’s property for a specified period. In a legal battle, the mortgagee was granted 20 years to keep the property until 1920

After the family’s members died, assets passed to Gangamma, Bassappa, Mallappa, and Santhappa. They leased the property to Ganapathi, who assumed ownership. Gangamma died before resolving, and Basappa requested property transfer Now here the other party named Jumma Masjid, Mercara entered the situation and stated the ownership of the assets on two grounds:

• First, on a bequest allegedly created by Gangamma before her death, and
• Second, Santhappa, one of the reversioners, signed the release deed, handing out his half-share in the assets to the mosque in exchange for some settlement.

Furthermore, Masjid claimed that all three reversioners were just anticipating that property in succession in order and had no ownership at the time, so under section 6(a), the three aforementioned reversioners had no right to sell the property and therefore the transfer made by them is void.

The court decided that whenever an individual transfers assets while expressing to others that presently he holds ownership in that property while he only holds a spes successionis, the transferee (that is, the individual to whom the property is transferred) has the right to the advantages provided by Section 43 if he made the transfer in good faith with due into account.

4. Rajender Singh & Ors v. Santa Singh & Ors, 1973 AIR 2537

In this case, Ps (A) appealed a land acquisition suit involving the Ds, the grandsons of the deceased Sham Singh. The plaintiffs claimed they secured ownership of the land due to a 1935 bequest by Smt. Malan and Smt. Khemi. However, there was controversy over daughters’ rights and widows’ authority to give away. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming the defendants gained illegal control of the property in dispute after the High Court’s decision, and claimed they had sole ownership since the death of Smt. Khemi.

It was recorded that the defendants’ wrongful possession, being the appellant beforehand the High Court, began throughout the pendency of the previous argument and was unable to be stopped just because the case for ownership was finally rejected by the High Court on 21-11-1958. On the opposite hand, the rule of lis pendens, found in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, would allow the plaintiffs-appellants to prevail over the effects of the defendants’ wrongful possession until 21-11-1958, allowing the doctrine of lis pendens to function as a provision allowing time the exclusion throughout the pendency of the defendants’ suit of 1940.

Therefore, the appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court.

5. Harish Chandra Hegde v. State of Karnataka, (2004) 9 SCC 780

The above-mentioned case law is one of the significant cases in this field where section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act was found to conflict with certain provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act. According to the Court, the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act was enacted to defend the interests of a specific group within society. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes required support and protection. As a result, the Act mentioned above was passed by the Directive Principles of State Policy. As an outcome, it possessed the hallmarks of a one-of-a-kind act. In this case, there was a contradiction between Sections 4 and 5 of TP Act 1882.

Those who were related to such groups are historically the weakest individuals in society. They needed protection from the law because their innocence, poor background, and years of inferiority made them vulnerable to abuse. Indian Constitution and 1956 Regulations aimed to protect the interests of tribal people by ensuring indefinite land possession for individuals from aboriginal tribes. However, the court ruled that property transfers by law do not fall under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, as the subject was covered by a different statute

6. Shrimati Shantabai v. State of Bombay & Others, 1958 AIR 532

The case concerned petitioner ‘A’, whose spouse B, the proprietor of the forest, signed an unregistered contract in the format of a lease in the name of A. As a result, A was granted the right to cut and utilize bamboo, timber, and fuel wood for a fee of Rs. Twenty-six thousand for 12 years. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act came into effect in 1950, removing A’s right to remove any more trees. An initiated a petition pursuant to Article 32 claiming that her fundamental rights were violated, and A also sought compensation.

The 4 justices on the five-judge bench ruled stated the document couldn’t be interpreted as a lease, but it permitted A to go inside the area to remove the trees. In an independent verdict, the 5th judge held that while a lease allows one to take advantage of the property, it doesn’t give anyone the authority to remove it or relocate it from its original place. The case demonstrated the trees qualify as immovable property. In the case of a lease, the individual who uses the property does not have the authority to take them away. The court held that a right to enter upon the land of another and carry a part of the product is an instance of profits-a-prendre

7. Joginder Tuli v. State Nct Of Delhi & Ors, W.P.(CRL) 1006/2020 & CRL.M.A. 8649/2020

The main question in this case is whether or not the transferee must register the legal documentation to access the advantages and safeguards afforded by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner, Joginder Tuli, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Ravinder Kumar Chugh, who subsequently died, in 2003. According to the abovementioned MoU, the petitioner was handed the ownership of the piece of property in issue, which was unregistered. Despite this, the petitioner contended that control of the land was not transferred to him because the deceased person’s family negotiated with a constructor, M/s Rock Builders Private Limited, to develop the premises of the mentioned property.

Joginder Tuli, the petitioner, saw Arvinder Singh during a property conflict and sought police assistance. Despite the petitioner’s possession of the contested land and the provision of title papers, the police seized the property. K.S. Bakshi, Managing Director of M/s Rock Contractors Private Limited, started negotiating with the petitioner to buy the property in 2008. The petitioner stated that K.S. Bakshi's agents frightened and mistreated him. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Delhi Police Commissioner, requesting that an FIR be lodged against Bakshi agents. The petitioner filed a writ petition with the Delhi High Court.

The court stated that, without any papers or other material evidence proving that the petitioner had actual ownership, the petitioner cannot rely on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act for defence or protection. It was widely understood that the quoted paperwork should be registered so that it can confer the benefits of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The writ petition was denied because the petitioner failed to submit any documentation establishing control over the property in question.

8. V. N. Sarin v. Major Ajit Kumar Poplai, AIR 1966 SC 432

In this case, the appellant ended up being a tenant of premises that belonged to a Hindu undivided family, the owner of the family being respondent No. 2. When the family property was divided, the stated premises were assigned to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 afterwards applied to the Rent Controller pursuant Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, asking the eviction of the person in question from the property on the grounds of his private need. The appellant objected to the application, arguing that because respondent No. 1 had acquired property by ‘transfer’ under the meaning of Section 14(6) within the Act, he was barred from relying on Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. After multiple phases, the case was heard through the High Court, which ruled that a portion acquired after the division of a Hindu undivided family was not an “acquisition by transfer” as defined under Section 14(6) of the Act. The appellant was granted Special Leave to appear before the Supreme Court.

It was held section 14 (6) didn’t exclude respondent No. 1 from filing an action to evict the applicant because the division of co-parcenary properties regarding coparceners according to Hindu Law does not qualify as a transfer under the purview of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Conclusion

Since we analyze these Landmark Cases on the Transfer of Property Act, it is clear that it is a multi-dimensional notion that fluctuates depending on the specific situations that we confront in daily life. It has undergone several amendment stages and will undoubtedly evolve further, given that it is not comprehensive. To summarize, it has demonstrated its adaptability and effectiveness in evolving times and is going to continue to do so.

Important Links