This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Act, 1882. . Transfer by act of parties, vested and contingent interest, election, clog on, right to foreclosure, mortgage, sale, charge, lease and gift. PROPERTY LAW NOTES AND CASES Chapter 1: What is immovable property? We know that property is the total wealth of a person. It may include land, buildings, mortgage rights, debts owed to him, insurance money due, cheques received, cash, etc. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, defines immovable property as that which does not include standing timber, growing crops and grass. This is a very open-ended definition though, so we must look at the definition furnished by the General Clauses Act, 1897, wherein it is mentioned that immovable property includes – a) land, b) benefits arising out of land, c) things attached to the earth, or d) permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Also, the Registration Act defines immovable property as land, buildings, hereditary allowances, rights to ways, lights, ferries, fisheries, or any other benefits arising out of land and things attached to the earth, but not standing timber, growing crops or grass. The Sale of Goods Act, which deals with the sale of movable property, says that movable property, or goods, includes any property other than actionable claims and money. This is why transfer of any actionable claim is dealt with in the TOPA. CASE: Ananda Behera v. State of Orissa The dispute was about fishing rights in the Chilka Lake, which was part of an estate owned by the Rajah of Parikud. By the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, the estate became vested in the State of Orissa. The petitioner had obtained from the previous proprietor the right to fish in the lake, long before the property became vested in the state. The State refused to recognize these licenses. The petitioner claimed that the transaction was based on the sale of future goods, and as fish was movable property, it should not be covered under the act that abolished the estates. There can be no doubt that the lake is immovable property. Therefore, the state, in whom the right to the lake is vested, can bar access to the lake for anyone else. The right the petitioner had was to catch and carry away fish from the lake. Now, this amounts to a benefit arising out of land, and hence, should be covered under immovable property. Also, fish is not standing timber, growing crop, or grass! If it was a mere sale of goods, there should be an instrument to prove it, that is, a written and registered receipt. The sale in this case was oral. The case is different from Firm Chhotabhai Jethabai Patel & Co. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, where it was held that the right to pluck Tendu leaves from trees was not under the purview of immovable property, as it is under the definition of a growing crop. Also, the state was not a part of the contract between the Rajah and the petitioner, so the state cannot be asked for the money, nor can the Rajah be asked to compensate, as he did not breach the contract either. The suit was dismissed. (Question: What is profit a prendre? Answer: It is a privilege or right to enter another’s land and take away some valuable, natural thing. For example, fish, wood, honey, etc.)
CASE: Shantabai v. State of Bombay The petitioner’s husband was a zamindar, who had executed an unregistered document in favour of the petitioner giving her the right to enter upon certain areas in the zamindari to cut and extract bamboo, fuel wood and teak. Only the lease for forest woods was given to her. Then the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act was passed and it was held that the petitioner no longer had an enforceable right against the state as far as lumbering work was concerned, as all proprietary land became vested in the state. Justice Bose said in this case that a tree draws subsistence from the soil as long as it stands, and therefore, it is permanently attached to the land and should be treated as immovable property. Standing timber must be in such a state that if cut, it can be used straightaway for building houses, bridges, ships, etc. The rule is that if there is an intention to sever such things as timber from the immovable property for the purpose of selling separately, then such separate items would constitute movable property. A tree can be said to be standing timber if it can be looked at as timber in all practical purposes, even if it is still standing. The deed for the transfer was unregistered, and the price was Rs. 26000, so the petitioner could not execute any right against the state. Appeal dismissed. A debt secured by mortgage of immovable property is itself immovable property.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROPERTY LAW IN INDIA AND ENGLAND Indian law classifies property into movable and immovable. But English law divides property into realty and personalty. Realty was the kind of property which could be regained by a person if he lost possession of it, through a real action. If a person lost possession of land, he had the right to take the land back from the new possessor. In the case of goods, if a person lost possession, he could not recover the goods, but he had the right to recover damages. Such action taken was personal action, and hence, goods were termed as personalty. However, the Indian system is prevalent in the UK now, after the Real Property Amendment Act of 1925. FREEHOLD AND LEASEHOLD An estate is said to be freehold when it is vested in a person for a definite period, which is of uncertain duration. For example, let us say Anubhab owns NUJS for life. Here, we know that as long as the period of Anubhab’s life is running, NUJS is vested in him. However, we do not know how long he will survive, so the duration is uncertain. On the contrary, a leasehold estate is held by a person for a definite period and certain duration. For example, a property may be leased to Anubhab for a period of 99 years. Thus, we know that it will be divested only after 99 years pass.
Chapter 2: What Property is Transferable? The TOPA deals with transfer of property inter vivos (between living persons). Hence, it does not apply to wills or testaments, which operate only after the death of the testator. Dedication of property to a temple or a deity is also invalid, as these are not living persons. However, sections 13, 14 and 20 make an exception, by allowing transfers in favour of unborn persons, with certain restrictions. This is quoted in Section 5 of the act. If a holder of property relinquishes his rights over it to the coparcener, or a widow gives up her right to the reversioner (person in whom the property is vested once the original possessor gives up his right to it) in order to accelerate his succession, they are not transfers, but merely extinction of rights in property. Partition of property is also not a transfer, but only a change in the mode of enjoyment of the property. Transfer of future property is invalid, that is, you cannot transfer property that is not in existence. In England, after the Law of Property Act, 1925 was passed, the creation and conveying of estate tail and life estate became banned. Only estate in fee simple and estate for a term of years were valid. In India, all 4 of these estates can be conveyed or created under the TOPA. Estate in fee simple – This implies absolute ownership. When a fee simple tenant dies, the estate passes to the nearest heir. Estate tail – It is created on the grantor’s request when on the grantee’s death, the estate goes to the grantee’s lineal descendants, or heirs of the body. If there are no such heirs, it reverts back to the grantor, or if the grantor is dead, the grantor’s representatives. Life Estate – It arises when an estate is granted to the grantee for the period of life of the grantee or of any other person. In the second case, it is known as per autre vie. Estate for term of years – The property is transferred for a definite period of time. A family arrangement of a disputed claim is also not a transfer of property. It is recognition of pre-existent rights and does not convey any new or distinct title to the parties. CASE: Kalyani v. Narayanan Here, a man named Karappan had two wives, Nani and Ponni. Two of the defendants, the plaintiff’s husband, and the deceased father of three more defendants were born of his first wife, in addition to 4 daughters (a very fertile woman indeed!), and his second wife had a son and 2 daughters. The family was governed by Mitakshara law, and Karappan had executed a registered deed for the partition of the property. Karappan had property worth 8000. He gave 1300 to each of his male issues. 300 went to his first wife and 1000 to his second wife. 200 went to his stepmother. Karappan died, and soon after this, Raman, his third son and husband of the plaintiff, followed th daddy upstairs. Widowed Kalyani sued for partition and separate possession of her 1/4 share in the property. The defendants held that the Karappan and his sons were coparceners of the property, and thus, Karappan had no authority to execute such a deed. They also contended that the 4 sons were coparceners to the property, and succession depended on survival. Since Kalyani’s husband was dead, therefore, she could not get the property. It was ancestral property, and all 4 sons had acquired interests to it by birth. Therefore, Karappan had no right to dispose of by will ancestral property in his hand. A Hindu father cannot impose such a family arrangement
without his sons’ consent after his death. The second wife’s son had already taken his share out and left the th family. Therefore, the brothers were tenants-in-common, and the property was allowed to be divided. 1/4 share was granted to the plaintiff. Section 6 of the act talks about what kinds of property may be transferred and what may not be transferred. In section 6(a), we find that the chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate, the chance of a relative obtaining a legacy on the death of his kinsman, or any other such mere possibility, cannot be transferred. These things mentioned in clause (a) are known as spes successionis. It means a mere chance, or bare possibility. It is different from future interest. In Indian law, the transfer of an expectancy or any agreement to transfer expectancy are both void. CASE: Annada Mohan Roy v. Gour Mohan Mullick In this case, the appellant purchased from the respondents their rights expectant, under the will of their uncle, upon the termination of his surviving widow’s rights. Later, there was a compromise between the widow and the respondents as a result of which the respondents got certain properties. The appellants filed a suit for the recovery of the properties from the respondents. The court held that the transfer was of a spes successionis, and was thus forbidden by the TOPA. CASE: Karpagathachi v. Nagarathinathachi 2 co-widows divided their husband’s properties into 2 shares and took separate possessions, with each widow giving up her life interest under the partition deed. The respondent is the daughter of the widow who died. The surviving widow filed a suit against the daughter for recovery of the property in her mother’s possession, alleging that the arrangement by which her right of survivorship was relinquished was repugnant to section 6(a). The court said that the interest of each widow was property, and this, along with the incidental right of survivorship could be lawfully transferred. The section might prohibit the transfer of the bare chance of the surviving widow taking the entire property as the next heir of the husband, but it does not prohibit the transfer by the widow of her present interest together with the incidental right of survivorship to the daughter. Suit dismissed. The ratio is that right of survivorship can be transferred. (Question: What is reversion? Answer: If I grant my land to Pritam for life, Pritam becomes entitled to it. On Pritam’s death, the land would be returned to my possession, and this is called reversion. Suppose now, that I grant a life estate to Pichu and then a fee simple [which would imply absolute ownership and reversion to Pichu’s nearest heir, say Bulba], then Bulba’s estate will be called ‘Remainder’. It may either be a vested remainder, as in this case, or a contingent remainder, say, with a condition of Bulba cracking CLAT.) CASE: Amrit Narayan v. Gaya Singh The guardian of a minor reversioner entered into a contract with the female holder of property that the properties would be relinquished in favour of other relatives. In a suit for the reversioner for possession of property after the female’s death, it was held that he had no right or interest at the time when the agreement was made, because the female owner was holding the property for life. Until it vested in him on her death, he had nothing to assign or relinquish or transfer. He, being the reversioner, has a right only after her death, and until then it is mere spes successionis. EASEMENTS An easement is a right which the owner or possessor of certain immovable property possesses for the proper enjoyment of the property (this must have a dominant heritage), like a right of way over adjoining property (which enjoys servient heritage). Since the right cannot subsist without the dominant heritage, the right of easement alone cannot be transferred. This is outlined in clause (c). Clauses (f), (g) and (h) are prohibited based on public policy. An office is granted to a person on personal grounds, and he alone can discharge the duties, and hence, be entitled to the salary. Loss of such remuneration might mean a lack of inducement to perform duties and temptation to accept bribes. Section 7 of the TOPA says that any person, who has the capacity to contract and is entitled to transferable property or authorized to dispose of such property, can transfer such property. In Mohari Bibi v. Dharmodas, it was held that a conveyance of land by a minor is void, as he is not competent to contract. Section 8 says that a transfer of property to a transferee transfers all the interests which the transferor can pass in the property (e.g. rents, profits, benefits arising from it, things attached to earth, etc.), unless a different intention is expressly or impliedly present. CASE: Nathoo Lal v. Durga Prasad
One Ramchandra dies, and gifts his property to his elder daughter Laxmi. On Laxmi’s death, her husband takes possession, claiming right as her heir. He mortgages the property to the appellant, Nathoo Lal. Meanwhile, after 12 years, the son of the other daughter (Bhuri) returns and claims the property, saying his aunt Laxmi only had a limited stake in it. The court observed that unless there are express terms in the deed of gift to indicate the donor who had the absolute interest, a gift in favour of an heir who inherits a limited interest cannot be understood as an absolute interest. Court held that to convey an absolute estate to Hindu female no express power of alienation need be given. The words used in the gift deed were of amplitude enough to convey full ownership to Laxmi. The appellant won the case.
ACTIONABLE CLAIM Actionable claim means a claim to any debt, other than debt secured by mortgage/pledge of immovable property, or to any beneficial interest in movable property not in the possession of the claimant, which are recognized by law as affording grounds for relief.
Chapter 3: General Rules regarding Transfer of Property Sections 10-18 contain the first set of rules that must be observed when alienating property. There is a principle in economics that wealth should be in free circulation so that the greatest benefit can be derived from it, and hence these sections provide that ordinarily there should not be any restraint on alienation. Section 10 provides that where property is transferred based on a condition or limitation which absolutely restrains the transferee or any person claiming under him from parting with or disposing of the interest in property, such condition or limitation is void. There are exceptions in the case of a lease where the condition is for the benefit of the lessor, and when the property is transferred to or for the benefit of a woman so that she shall not have power during her marriage to transfer or charge the same for her beneficial interest. In almost all property law systems, the rule is alienatio rei praefertur juri accrescendi, that is, the law favours alienation of property rather than accumulation. Section 10 must be read with Section 12 which says that where property is transferred subject to a condition or limitation making any interest therein, reserved or given to or for the benefit of any person, to cease on his becoming insolvent or trying to dispose of the same, such condition or limitation is void. Nothing in this clause applies to a condition in lease for the lessor’s benefit. A condition which says that the transferee will not transfer his interest in a property for 3 years or that he will not transfer it to any member of a particular family is partial restraint and is therefore allowed. But if a condition exists saying that the transferee is prevented from transferring his property to anyone but the transferor or his heirs and that too only if they are willing to buy, it constitutes absolute restraint, and is void. Assume that a situation arises where Suman, Arghya and Dipayan partition a joint property and agree that if anyone of them does not have a baby, he should not sell his property to anyone else, but leave it for the other two. This is a case of absolute restraint. If I sell a property to Biju and Biju independently executes an agreement whereby he states that if he wants to sell the property he would only sell it to me, the agreement would be valid, because I did not impose any condition against alienation at the time of transfer. Biju himself added the condition. As far as lessors are concerned, the condition is good only if it is for the benefit of the lessor, for example, if a conveyance gives the power to the lessor to re-enter (take control of the property once it is out of his possession) instead of merely entitling to damages. Restraints on the power of alienation in favour of married women (who are not Hindus, Muslims or Buddhists) will be valid. Under old English law, a husband and wife were looked at as one legal entity. All the property of the woman would become her husband’s on marriage, and she could not dispose of it without his consent, and nor could she devise a will. The Married Women’s Property Act of 1882 changed this. Thenceforth, the transferor has the power to decide to what extent he wants to restrain the woman’s power of alienation. Such provision can be used to prevent a married woman from alienating her property as long as she is under her husband’s protection. Section 13 of the act provides that when an interest (the interest must, of course, be subject to a prior interest, as you cannot directly transfer to a person unborn) is created for the benefit of a person not yet born on the date of the transfer, the interest will not take effect unless it extends to the entire remaining interest of the transferor in the property. Example – say Johnny transfers a property to Pony, and after Johnny’s death to the eldest son of Pony and after his death to the youngest son, the interest created for the eldest son is void, because the remainder does not go to him but the younger son is also included.
Children in the womb and children adopted by a lady after her husband’s death are deemed to be in existence for this purpose. Again, this section exhibits that law favours free circulation of property. This section foils the De Donis Conditionalibus statute. This is also known as the rule against Double Possibility. The court foils the attempt of owners to create a series of future interests. Difference between English and Indian law – the rule of double possibility is more stringent in Indian law. Say a property is vested in X for life, to Y, an unborn child on X’s death, and to Z on Y’s death. In English law, the interest created for Z is void, as it requires double possibility – 1) birth of Y before X’s death, and 2) death of Y before Z. In Indian law, interests in favour of both Y and Z are void, as the remainder does not go to Y on X’s death, but there is a chance of it vesting in Z as well. Under this section, 3 conditions must be complied with for the interest to be valid – 1) interest of the unborn person must be preceded by a prior interest in favour of a living person, 2) the unborn person must be in existence when the prior interest comes to an end, and 3) the interest must be the whole of the remaining interest of the transferor, a life interest will not do, must be an absolute interest. CASE: Ganendramohun Tagore v. Juttendramohun Tagore This was an 1872 case, and the law now stands changed. The defendants were trustees under the will of one Prosonocoomar Tagore, and the plaintiff was his son. The defendants were tenants for life. Prosonocoomar died in 1868, and his will provided nothing for his heirless son. This is probably because his son had converted to Christianity. All of the testator’s property was stipulated to go to the 4 trustees. Much of the property was granted to Juttendramohun for his life, and after his life, to his eldest son who would be born during the testator’s life, and thereafter to the sons of the eldest son. The plaintiff contended that the will was void save as far as Juttendramohun’s life interest was concerned, and thereafter, he himself should receive the property. He also said that it was an ancestral estate, which the testator had no right to dispose of this way. The High Court had dismissed the plaint. Sreemutty Soorjemoney v. Denobundoo Mullick is referred to. English law says that a person must be in existence to take under a will. Court held that Juttendromohun had a life interest, after which, the will fails, and the property passes to the plaintiff as the testator’s heir-at-law. Section 14 enshrines the rule against perpetuity. It says that the property cannot be transferred if it is to take effect after the lifetime of one or more persons living at the date of transfer, and the minority of some person who shall be in existence at the expiration of the period, to whom the interest is to belong on attainment of adulthood. Confused? Me too… Let’s exemplify. Suppose a grant is made to A for life and the remainder goes to A’s eldest son 3 years after A’s death. Here, the beneficiary must be a minor at the time of A’s death. However, his enjoyment of the property can be delayed till he is a major. In English law, however, an absolute period of 21 years is permitted after the death of the person concerned who had the prior interest. So, the second beneficiary may be major on the date of the first one’s death. Read Sarathi for more illustrations on this, page 57. CASE: Ganesh Sonar v. Purnendu Narayan Singha The plaintiff-respondent’s father had granted a registered lease in favour of the defendant-appellant for the purpose of a homestead. One of the conditions of the lease was that the lessor would have the right of re-entry upon the land at anytime and at such time the lessee would have to vacate the property, being entitled to the money value of any constructions he may have made. The instrument said that the defendant and his heirs would enjoy the property until the plaintiff wanted it back for creation of a hat. The appellants’ counsel contended that the agreement to the option given to the lessor to determine the lease and take possession of the leasehold land was a covenant between the parties and offended the rule against perpetuities. However, it was held in Rama Rao v. Thimmappa that a clause entitling a lessor to terminate the lease at anytime which is described as permanent and which is to be enjoyed from generation to generation does not offend the rule against perpetuities. In this case, it was merely a personal covenant and not one which created an interest in land, and therefore, no offence to the rule. It was also contended that the covenant was for relinquishment by the lessee to the lessor, and not the lessor’s heirs. This contention was baseless, as the deed stated otherwise. So, the appeal was dismissed. Chapter 7: Equitable Rules When Property Rights Conflict CASE: MacQueen v. Ramcoomar Koondoo The case dealt with the doctrine of holding out as enunciated in section 41. The respondent’s father, Ramdhone, had purchased a property from one Bunnoo Bibi. The Koondoos had since that time possessed the property.
Chapter 9: Doctrine of Part Performance The doctrine is enshrined in Section 53A which basically states that even if there is no formal instrument of transfer. The suit was decreed in 1921. Thus. and that Alexander was the real purchaser. having simply used Bunnoo’s name in the transaction. it would have been prudent for Ramdhone to have looked at whether she was entitled to transfer the property or not. A ‘contract for sale’ is an agreement between the parties as to the various terms and conditions based on which the property will be sold. Thus. The building of a factory on the land. and the defendant cannot be evicted. The Court held that the fact that all the vendor’s property had not been sold would not repel the application of section 53(1). and thus. Hormusji Jamshedji There was a lease agreement between the two parties through a series of correspondences. and the appellant in this case is the husband of Alexander’s daughter Maria. Chapter 10: Sale of Immovable Property There is a difference between ‘contract for sale’ and ‘contract of sale’. The creditor contended that the sale was made to the purchaser with the intention of defrauding the creditors. The appellant’s claimed that their father had purchased the property with a bona fide belief that Bunnoo was the real owner. However. The widow’s side contended that the sale of 1920 was attacked by the doctrine of lis pendens and the purchaser contended that the sale of 1928 was null and void. the decree-holder purchased the properties in 1928. It was held that the sale of 1920 was pendente lite and that the sale of 1928 to the widow was valid. A purchaser (plaintiff) filed a suit to have the summary order set aside. CASE: Maneklal Mansukhbhai v. The High Court held that Ramdhone should have made an enquiry as to Bunnoo Bibi’s status. It is basically the formal legal instrument or conveyance which evidences the sale of the property. It does not create any interests in the property per se. and he had sufficiently improved the property by building a bungalow on it. it was held that section 53A aimed at defending a person who has no registered title deed I maintaining his property if he could produce a signed contract and some action on his part in part performance of the contract. in this case. However. Arji Papa Rao A sale deed was executed in 1949 with respect to a part of the assets of the vendors. the properties were sold to the appellant’s predecessor. unless there was proof that there was other property left sufficient in value to pay off the creditor. the widow filed a suit in forma pauperis for maintenance and marriage expenses of her daughters.Bunnoo Bibi was the mistress of one Alexander MacDonald. In 1920. In execution of the maintenance decree which also created a charge on the suit properties. Bunnoo Bibi’s statement in the instrument also said that the transfer was with the support of her family. Shama Rao The properties in dispute belonged to one Munuswami who died leaving behind a widow and three sons. and it was made with the intention of putting the property out of the creditor’s reach. the appeal was allowed. Rent was also collected for several years. In 1919. A creditor (defendant) of the vendors filed for recovery of his debt and attached that property. but also occupied the property for more than 30 years. CASE: Abdul Shakoor v. It appears that the purchase of property by Bunnoo Bibi was a benamitransaction. When the plaintiff tried to eject the defendant on the grounds that he was trespassing. if the transferee has paid consideration and there is an agreement to transfer between the parties the transfer is valid because it has been partly performed. the Privy Council held that an enquiry would have revealed that MacDonald was in possession. The defendant was put in possession of the property. there was no formal lease deed ever executed. A ‘contract of sale’ creates an interest in the property concerned. the decision was reached that it was not a bona fide purchase. They contended that they had not only paid full value at the time of the transaction. CASE: Nagubai Ammal v. . was construed by the court as part performance.
right to collect rents of immovable property. a right of way. Immovable property has been defined to be one which does not include standing timber. a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property. It also specifies that “living persons” includes a company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. However. as contained in the Transfer of Property Act. Name three immovable properties other than house and landed property. a right of fishery. to one or more other living persons. right of ferry. What do you understand by transfer of property? Ans 2: Section 5 of the T. . building and structure standing on land etc. By any generic legal sense immovable property not only means tangible immovable property like land. a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) the equity of redemption. Q2. growing crops or grass. in present or in future. the interest of a mortgagee in immovable property.. and “to transfer property” is to perform such act. (WITH ANSWERS) (Please supplement this reading material with text books) Q1..SKN/NUJS/3rd Yr-6th Sem/2007 SOME MODEL QUESTIONS ON PROPERTY LAW.P Act specifies that the expression transfer of property means an act by which a living person conveys property. 1882 . does not contain an exhaustive definition of immovable property. nothing shall affect any law relating to transfer of property to or by companies. a right to graze cattle or mow grass. association or bodies of individuals. Ans 1: The law of transfer of property . or to himself. or to himself and one or more other living persons. it also includes some intangible rights like.
cannot be transferred.Q3. can be made only by a registered instrument. .P. and legal incident thereof. Ans 5: (a) As per Section 54 of the T.P. then capable of passing in the property. When does a transfer of property operate? Ans 4: Section 8 of the T.P Act provides that a) the chance of an heir apparent succeeding to an estate. of a like nature. Q4. nor can the salary of a public officer. air force and civil pensioners of the government and political pensions cannot be transferred. (a) How can a sale of immovable property be made? (b) How can a mortgage of an immovable property be effected? (c) How can a lease of immovable property be made? (d) How can a gift be effected?. Q5. or any other mere possibility. a transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the transferor. the chance of a relation obtaining a legacy on the death of kinsman. Ans 3: Section 6 of the T. naval. g) stipends allowed to military. Specify five things which may not be transferred. Act a sale of any tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. Act provides that unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied. b) a mere right of re-entry for breach of a condition subsequent cannot be transferred to anyone except the owner of the property affected thereby c) an easement cannot be transferred apart from the dominant heritage d) an interest in property restricted in its enjoyment to the owner personally cannot be transferred by him e) a mere right to sue cannot be transferred f) a public office cannot be transferred.
such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by deliver of the property. Q6. Ans 5(d) Section 123 of the T. why? If not. why? Specify the reason for your answer. or reserving a yearly rent. Act provides that a lease of a immovable property from year to year. the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor. All other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. .P. A gift of movable property may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid. or for any term exceeding one year.P. can be made only by a registered instrument.If the value of the property is less than one hundred rupees. Is the transfer valid in law? If so.P. Such registered instruments shall be executed by both the lessor and the lessee. Ans 5(c) Section 107 of the T. A gifts his house X to M. a mortgage other than a mortgage by deposit of title deeds can be effected only by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses. Act where the principal money secured is one hundred rupees or upwards. or by delivery. Ans 5(b) As per provision of Section 59 of the T. and attested by at least two witnesses. his son-in-law with a condition that he cannot sell it to anybody. Act provides that for the purpose of making a gift of immovable property.
the interest created for the benefit of such person shall not take effect. where the condition is for the benefit of the lessor). on a transfer of property an interest therein is created absolutely in favour of any person. subject to a prior interest created by the same transfer. with reason. the eldest son of the intended marriage for life and then to S2. Ans 8: Section 13 of the T. In the instant case A makes a gift of his house property X to his son in law M. Act provides that where.P. Q7. A. an interest therein is created for the benefit of a person not in existence at the date of the transfer. In the instant case when A sells his flat to B at a concessional price. notwithstanding that it was at a concessional price. Explain the validity of the transfer. unless it extends to the whole of the remaining interest of the transferor in the property. The transfer stands but the condition is void. In that case the transferee B is entitled to receive the property as if there was no such condition. signifying that the transfer. was intended to be absolute in nature. his brother at a concessional price on condition that he cannot lease out the property and induct a tenant therein. This signifies that once the transfer takes effect M is not bound by the condition. transfers his property X in favour of B. he shall be entitled to receive and dispose of such interest as if there was no such condition. the second son. Q8.P Act provides that where property is transferred subject to a condition or limitation absolutely restraining the transferee or any person claiming under him from parting with or disposing of his interest in the property. the condition or limitation is void (except in case of a lease. on a transfer of property. subject to a condition restraining M from alienating the said property absolutely.Ans 6: Sec 10 of the T. who is to marry B. to S1. Ans 7: Section 11 of the TP Act provides that where.. but the terms of transfer direct that such interest shall be applied or enjoyed by him in a particular manner. . his intended wife for life and after her death. Was the transfer valid? Specify the reason for your answer. A sells his flat to B.
the transfer in favour of S2.Act. (The only thing is that the unborn son must come into existence before expiration of the prior interest. Q9. his unborn son. It also offends the provisions of Section 5 of the T. unborn on the date when A made the transfer. a person living on the date of transfer and thereafter to C’s son. This in other words means that the transferor cannot keep anything reserve for himself and the transfer must be absolute. i.In the instant case the transfer in favour of S1. shall not take effect because of the fact that the said transfer in favour of S1 was limited for his life and does not extend to the whole of the remaining interest of A in the property. then to C for life and then to C’s son.Act no interest in favour of an unborn person for his benefit can be created except through a prior interest created by the same transfer in favour of a person living on the date of transfer. Ans 10: As per provisions of Section 13 and 14 of the T. Act an interest in favour of an unborn person for his through some prior interest created by the same transfer in favour of some person or persons living on the date of transfer. Comment with reasons on the legality of the transfer. absolutely. also fails. A transfer his house property X to S1. The transfer is valid up to the life time of B and the transfer made in favour of S1 fails and as the transfer in favour of S1 fails. Q10. Ans 9: As per provisions of Section 13 of the T. Comment with reasons on the legality of the transfer. The transfer in favour of the unborn person is absolute and hence in consonance with the requirement of law. which indicates that atransfer of property signifies a transfer of property between two living persons.P. before the death of B.) .. Another requirement of Section 13 is that such interest created in favour of an unborn person must extend to the whole of the remaining interest of the transferor.e. absolutely. being dependant on the transfer in favour of S1. unborn on the date of transfer.P.P. Accordingly any transfer directly in favour of an unborn person is void in law. A transfers his house property X to B for life. In the instant case a prior interest is created in favour of B. after the life time of B.
was born on 25. However there are certain judicial decisions wherein it has been held that a person in mother’s womb is deemed to be in existence. however. In the instant case the transfer in favor of C. provided the transfer initially must be in favor of a living person and that the transfer in favor of the unborn person must be absolute and that he must come into existence before expiration of the prior interest and further that the interest created in favor of an unborn person shall not extend beyond his minority. To what extent the transfer of X on 15. such interest is vested unless a contrary intention appears from the terms of the transfer.P. the unborn person was absolute. A transfers his house property to B for life and after his death to C.P. It also provides that a vested interest is not defeated by the death of the transferee before he obtains possession. on a transfer of property.1980 by A takes effect?.1980.1980 A transferred his house property X to B for life and then to C. Do B and C acquire any kind of interest in the property on the date of the transfer? Ans 12: Section 19 of the T. C. who was not born on the date of transfer. or in terms specifying that it is to take effect forthwith. In that view the transfer in favor of C takes effect. interest therein is created in favor of a person without specifying the time when it is to take effect.12. Act provides that where.12. B died on 22.1980. Q12. . Ans 11: As per provisions of sections 13 and 14 of the T. on the happening of an event which must happen. Specify the reasons for your answer.7. Act a transfer in favor of an unborn person for his benefit can be made.7. In that view the transfer in favor of C fails and C cannot claim any benefit therefrom. absolutely. On 15.Q11. but he was born only after the death of B.
his heirs will step into the picture in the event of C’s dying before taking possession or B’s death). such person thereby acquires a contingent interest in the property.P. in the latter. but to possess only after the death of B. In the instant case the interest created in favor of C is contingent on happening of an event. Q13. on the happening of the event.) . On 15. On 1. That contingency could have happened or could not have happened.7.25. both B and C acquire a vested interest in the concerned property. Act specifies what is a vested interest.1990? Ans 14: Section 19 of the T.9. Accordingly. Such interest becomes a vested interest in the former case. C acquires a contingent interest in the concerned property on the date of transfer.7. when the happening of the event becomes impossible.1. namely B’s dying as minor. Act provides that where. While B acquires a vested interest with immediate possession.1998 A transferred X. a plot of land to B with a direction that X will be handed over to B on his attaining majority but if B dies as minor. Does C acquire any kind of interest in X on the date of transfer? Ans 13: Section 21 of the T. which is an uncertain event.1990 M gave to N Rs. or if a specified uncertain event shall not happen. the property shall go to C. Does N acquire any interest in X on 1.P. interest therein is created in favor of a person to take effect only on the happening of a specified uncertain even. because of the fact that C has already acquired a vested interest in the concerned property. C also acquires a vested interest in the property. (If C dies before taking possession of the property. on a transfer of property. to be paid to N at the death of P.000/-. or before the death of B. Q14.In the instant case when A makes the transfer. (Explain what is vested interest.
A gave property X to W.1996 A executed a deed of gift with a direction that the income arising from the property X will be given to A for life and after his death the corpus will be divided and given to B C and D. Q17. Q16.10. (Explain what is vested interest.P. C.) In the instant case on the date of transfer on 22. which will be given to them only after the death of A. on such transfer N acquires a vested interest in the property.1988. S1 and S2 acquired a vested interest in the property on the date of transfer.9. When shall GS1 acquire any interest in the property and if so.P. Do B C and D acquire any interest in X on 22. On 15. D acquire vested interest in the property X. his grandson.10. Act specifies what is a vested interest. absolutely.7.1996 B. (Explain what is vested interest.In the instant case. It signifies that B.9. only the enjoyment is postponed till the death of P.9.1990 an amount of money was transferred in favor of N. two son’s of A. the interest transferred in favor of B and S1 will be inherited by their legal heirs respectively (as because B and S1 acquired a vested interest in the property on such transfer). Accordingly. his wife for life and on W’s death one share to B. What happens to the share transferred to B and S1? Ans 16: Section 19 of the T. his son for life and then to GS1. Since B and S1 died during the lifetime of W. Q15. Death of P was an event of a certain nature. what kind of interest? .1996? Ans 15: Section 19 of the T. GS1 was not born on 15. B and S1 died during the life time of the widow. S1 and S2 were to take effect on the death of W. Act specifies what is a vested interest. which was to be paid at the death of P.1988 A transfers his property X to S.) In the instant case the transfer in favor of B. on 1. who is A’s brother and the other to S1 and S2. On 22.
Accordingly.P. Act specifies what is a contingent interest. . then to her (B’s) adopted son. both B and C acquire a contingent interest in the property on the date of transfer.P. Only in that event C can acquire an interest in the concerned estate. Do B and C acquire any kind of interest in the estate? State the reason for your answer. if B dies before A) . Did C acquire any interest in X on the date of the transfer? Ans 18: Section 21 of the T. then to C. Q19. (Explain what is vested interest. Ans 19: Section 21 of the T. B’s dying without adopting a son.P. A transfer his property X to B for life. X. Act specifies contingent interest.Ans 17: Section 19 of the T. Act specifies what is a vested interest. (it becomes vested in case of B if he survives A and in case of C. The transfer in favour of C is dependent on B’s dying before A. if she dies without adopting anybody. that is. an estate is transferred to A for life and after A’s death to B. Q18. (Explain what is In the instant case the transfer to B is dependent on the fact of B’s surviving A. C acquired only a contingent interest in X (If the contingency happened. (Explain what is contingent interest. if B shall then be living. but if he dies before A then to C. that is. the said unborn person acquires an interest in the said property only when he is born or comes into existence.) In the instant case C ‘s acquisition of interest in X on the date of transfer was dependent on one event. Accordingly.) what is contingent interest.) If a transfer is made in favor of an unborn person for his benefit and thereby if the said unborn person acquires a vested interest in the concerned property. if B died without leaving an adopted son. only then C would have got the property).
2. Ans 22: (Explain what is contingent interest). In the instant case the interest of B in the concerned property is contingent upon fulfillment of the condition i.e. Does B acquire any kind of interest in the Delhi farm house? Ans 20: (Explain what is contingent interest). On the date of transfer. Does B acquire any interest in the property? Specify the reason for your answer. A transfers his Delhi farm house to B. C’s not marrying D with in three years from the date of transfer.Q20. Q21. In the instant case B is acquisition of interest in Delhi Farm house is dependent on B transferring his (B) Jodhpur Farm House to C and accordingly B will acquire interest in Delhi farm house only after B transfers his Jodhpur Farm House to C. until B transferred his Jodhpur farm to C. A transfers property X to B. if C does not marry D within 3 years from the date of transfer. M transfers Rs.000/.00.to N. when N attains majority and provides that the income arising out of the said money shall be applied for maintenance of N until he reaches majority. Does N acquire any interest in the said fund? Ans 21: In the instant case N acquires a vested interest in the concerned fund. . if B shall convey his Jodhpur farm house to C. B acquired only a contingent interest in the Delhi farm house. Q22.
was impossible and hence the transfer was void.to B on condition that he shall murder C. Ans 23: Sec 25 of the T. On the date of the transfer C was dead. Comment on the legality of the transfer. A’s daughter.3.5.P.to B. Q25.to B on condition that he shall marry C. his niece. it would defeat the provision of any law or is fraudulent or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another.Conditional Transfer). A transfers Rs.3. Ans 25: (Explain the provisions of Sec 25.000/. Act provides that an interest created on a transfer of property and dependent upon a condition. or the Courts regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. A transfer Rs.50. fails if the fulfillment of the condition is impossible or is forbidden by law. 000/. if permitted. on which the transfer was dependent.50. or is of such nature that. The condition of transfer is immoral or opposed to public policy and hence the transfer is void . A gives Rs.00. Comment on the legality or otherwise of the transfer. Ans 24: (Explain the provisions of Sec 25.Q23. Q24. Comment on the legality of the transfer. The condition of the transfer is illegal and forbidden by law and hence the transfer is void.000/.Conditional Transfer). if B desserts her husband. In the instant case the fulfillment of the condition.
Q28. Ans. Did B fulfill the condition? State the reason for your answer.26: Sec. as the immediate or precedent interest ceases to exist. So B . Q27. A transfer Rs. A transfers his property to B for life and then to C.1.to B on condition that B shall marry with the consent of C D and E.23 of the T. and no time is mentioned for the occurrence of the event.P. Ans 28: Law requires substantial compliance of a condition precedent for a transfer. if C gets married. In the instant case the transfer to C will not take effect unless he is married either in the lifetime of B or at the same time as B dies. B marries with the consent of C and D. B died in 1998 and C gets married in 2005 and claims the property. but obtains the consent after the marriage. But in the instant case B married without consent of C. Comment on the legality or otherwise of his claim. but obtains their consent after marriage. or at the same time.000/. Act provides that where the terms of a transfer of the property impose a condition to be fulfilled before a person can take interest in the property. B marries without the consent. E dies. unless such events happens before. In the instant case as E dies and B marries with the consent of the other two persons namely C and D. on a transfer of property.27: Section 26 of the T. it shall be deemed to be a substantial compliance of the condition and B shall be deemed to have fulfilled the condition. Ans. Did B fulfill the condition? State the reason for your answer.Q26.to B on condition that B shall marry with the consent of C D and E. and E. 00. condition shall be deemed to have been fulfilled if it has been substantially complied with.1.000/. an interest therein is to accrue to a specified person if a specified uncertain event shall happen. the interest fails.P>Act provides that where. D. A transfer Rs. 00.
Q29. the ulterior disposition shall take effect upon the failure of the prior disposition. As the period of disposition failed. to C. the money shall go to C.1. and by the same transaction an ulterior disposition of the same interest is made in favour of another. failing which. the ulterior disposition in favour of C takes effect. D. . and E before his marriage. and a subsequent ratification by them will not mean substantial compliance of the condition by B. In the instant case the ulterior disposition in favour of C was dependant on or conditional on B’s executing a lease within three months after A’s death. although the failure may not have occurred in the manner contemplated by the transferor. B did not go to England within three years form the date of transfer. Q30. Ans 30: Section 31 of the T.000/. Does the transfer in favour of C take effect? Specify the reason for your answer.did not comply with the condition of taking consent of C. In that view B has not fulfilled the condition.to B on condition that B shall execute a certain lease within three months after A’s death and if B should neglect to do so. Act provides that on a transfer of property an interest therein may be created with the condition superadded that it shall cease to exist in case a specified uncertain event shall happen.00. and in case B should neglect to do so. A transfers a farm to B with the condition that he shall go to England within three years from the date of transfer. if the prior disposition under the transfer shall fail. or in case a specified uncertain event shall not happen. B dies in A’s lifetime. Does the disposition in favour of C take effect? Ans 29: Section 27 of the T. Act provides that where. on a transfer of property an interest therein is created in favour of one person. B died during the lifetime of A.P. A transfers Rs. the transfer in favour of C shall take effect.P.
or marrying. with a proviso that if B dies a minor or marries without C’s consent.to B to be paid to him on his attaining majority. the interest in his favour ceases to take effect. then to C. In the instant case the ulterior disposition being illegal and invalid.000/. while law requires only a substantial compliance of a condition precedent. Ans 32: Section 30 of the T.In the instant case on transfer of the farm to B. B marries when he was only 17 years of age and without C’s consent. What happens to the transfer in favour of D. It is a basic tenet of law that it favours vesting of property and disfavors divesting of such property. Act provides that if the ulterior disposition is not valid.P. Act provides that an ulterior disposition of the kind contemplated in Section 28 cannot take effect unless the condition is strictly fulfilled. the prior disposition is not affected by it. and if she does not desert her husband. which has once vested on the transferee. Ans 31: Section 29 of the T. 00. the money shall go to D. B is entitled to the farm during her life as if no condition had been inserted.5. A transfers X.? Specify the reason for your answer. but it is an essential requirement of law that for divesting an interest there shall be a strict compliance of the condition subsequent. . a farm to B for her life. Q32. Q31. As B did not go to England within the specified time. Comment with reason on the legality or otherwise of the transfer. In the instant case since B did not fulfill the condition strictly and meticulously the transfer in favour of D takes effect. a condition was superadded. In other words. requiring B to go to England within three years from the date of the transfer and on failure of which condition the interest of B in the transfer shall cease to have effect.P. A transfers Rs.
B having died childless the property transferred in favour of B shall re-vest in the grantor. B does not go the England within the specified time. the transfer shall cease to have any effect. A transfers X.Q33. What happens to the said property? Specify the reason for your answer. a farm to B for her life. A gifted X. B dies childless. a house property to B.P. Q35. his interest in the farm shall cease. A made a gift of her house to B with a condition that B should pay up the debt of A and shall also maintain A as long as she lived. with a condition superadded that if B shall not go the England within three years from the date of transfer. Act provides that a condition that transfer shall cease to have effect in case specified uncertain events happens or does not happen. Ans 35: In the instant case the transfer of the house property in favour of B contained a condition that the property shall re-vest in the guarantor in the event of B’s dying childless. the property should re-vest in the grantor. a farm to B. Q34. . his daughter. his interest in the farm ceases. B cuts down the wood. with a proviso that in case he cuts down a certain wood. In the instant case as B cuts down the wood. with a condition super added that if she died childless. Q36. A transfers X. happens to the said transfer? Ans 34: Here also on B’s failure to fulfill the condition super added to the transfer. What happens to the said transfer? Ans 33: Section 31 of the T. B’s inability to go to England within three years from the date of transfer. his interest in the farm ceases. namely. What. What happens to the said property? Specify the reason for your answer. if. B failed to comply the two conditions.
In question no 37. If C elects to retain the farm he forfeits the gift of rupees one crore. died and in all cases where the transfer is for consideration. It also provides where the transfer is gratuitous and the transferor has. If C elects to retain the farm.P. paying up the debt of A and also maintaining A as long as she lived.00. what happens to the gift of rupees one crore? Ans 37: Section 35 of the T. what happens if A dies before election? Ans 38: If A dies before the election by C.Ans 36: In this case also B having failed to fulfill the two conditions. 80. Q37. before the election. which shall revert to the transferor as if it had not been disposed off.000/. such owner must elect either to confirm such transfer or to dissent from it. giving by the same instrument rupees one crore to C. The Jodhpur farm is the property of C and worth Rs. . 80. A’s representative must pay Rs. and get the property back. the disappointed transferee shall be paid the value of the property attempted to be transferred to him.to B from out of said rupees one crore. which he has no right to transfer. the donor can be held to be entitled to cancel the gift. namely.000/-. and in the latter case he shall relinquish the benefits so conferred. Act provides that when a person professes to transfer a property.00. Q38. and as part of the same transaction confers any benefit on the owner of the property. A by a instrument of gift professes to transfer the farm to B.
require him to make his election. A transfers the Jodhpur farm. In the instant case as C takes possession of the mine and exhausts it. although he professed to transfer the whole. but takes possession of the mine and exhausts it. Q40.Q39. B subsequently purchased the remaining half.P. if he does not comply with such requisition within a reasonable time. Act provides that when an election is necessary. to B and as a part of the same transaction gives C a coal-mine.P. as the contract of transfer subsisted A was entitled to it and may require B to deliver the other half share subsequently acquired by B. Ans 40: Section 35 of the T. the property of C. and. what happens if C does not specify anything in this regard within five years of the transfer? Ans 39: Section 35 of the T. by implication he has thereby conformed the transfer of the estate to B. What happens to the transfer? Specify the reason for your answer. as per provisions of the said section 43. such transfer shall. In question no 36. What happens to the exchange deal? Specify the reason for your answer. A had repudiated and impeached the contract. . the person whose duty is to elect shall specify his decision in this regard either expressly or by implication. Accordingly.P. although he professed to transfer the whole. Act provides that where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorized to transfer such property for consideration. upon expiration of that period. A obtained a property from B by way of exchange. Q41. In the instant case at the time of exchange B had only a half share. the transferor or his representatives may. Ans 41: Section 43 of the T. at the option of the transferee. C did not specify anything about election. There is nothing to indicate that by the time B purchased the remaining half share. Act provides that if C does not within one year after the date of the transfer signify to the transferor (A) or his representatives his (B) intention to confirm or to dissent from the transfer. operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists. he shall be deemed to have elected to confirm the transfer. At the time of exchange B had only a half share.
only after the transaction has been called in question and impeached In that view it cannot be said that when B acquired the other half share from A. Act to a transferee is available only if the contract of transfer subsists. C had been ill for sometime past and not attending the office of the company. the contract of transfer in question was subsisting. but to the extent of one third share. the contract of transfer having not been called in question and repudiated. In 1999. in which he has only a third share. B was in effective control of the house and representing the same to be his property. . This fact had been known to B before the transaction. he (B) is not entitled to enforce a mortgage in respect of half share of the concerned property. While A had all through been out of India. and C owned a company in equal shares. What legal right can D invoke in such a situation? Ans 42: In the instant case as per provisions of section 43 of the T. D was entitled to the share of C and may require A and B to convey the said share of C to him (D). Later on. B acquired the other half share from A by gift in 1999. Accordingly. interest and share in the property he was professing to transfer. Can C now require B to transfer the other half share (gifted by A to B) in favour of C? Ans 44: The right conferred by section 43 of the T. C having discovered that at the time of sale B had only a half share repudiated the deal by instituting a suit against B for appropriate relief in 1998. A gifted his half share to B. C repudiated the deal and instituted a suit against B impeaching the transaction. A and B leased the whole property to D. In the instant case B having known that at the time of transfer A had only one third share. A. title. Is B entitled to enforce his mortgage against the half share? Specify the reason for your answer. and seeking appropriate relief in 1998. transferred the same to C in 1996 for consideration. Ans 43: The right conferred to a transferee under section 43 of the T.P.P. only. on the death of his father A became owner of a half share. by calling in question the whole transaction. In the instant case C having discovered that at the time of sale B had only half share in the property. Act is not available to a transferee who had knowledge that at the time of transfer his transferor had not possessed the right. B.Q42. as if C had no interest at all.44 On the death of F. Q43.P. his house and other properties were inherited by his two sons A and B. A mortgages a half share in the family property to B. Q. Act. in such circumstances C cannot require B to transfer the other half share (gifted by A to B) in favor of C. C died and gave his share to A and B.
P Act provides that for the purpose of making a gift of immoveable property. Q47. in the absence of a contract to the contrary. . who had absolutely no notice of the previous transaction. in fact. What legal right C may invoke in this situation? Ans 46: As per provisions of section 81 of the T. A owns three properties namely X. the transferee (C) in good faith for consideration without notice gets the protection of law and the transfer in favor of C shall remain unaffected and valid. and attested by at least two witnesses. did not have. C may require and ask B.P. Y. In the instant case if properties X. Z are mortgaged to B and again property X is mortgaged to C. which he. A desires to transfer by way of gift his Lancer car to his elder son B. to realize his mortgage due as far as possible from out of the property Y and Z and leave X free for realization of his dues.Q45. How can A lawfully make the transfer? Ans 47: Section 123 of the T. Later on A mortgages property X to C free from encumbrance. Q46. He mortgages them to B. the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor. entitled to have the prior mortgage debt satisfied out of the property or properties not mortgaged to him.Y. if the owner of two or more properties mortgages them to one person and then mortgages one or more of the properties to another person. under this rule of marshalling of securities. Act. A representing that he had the authority to transfer an immovable property X. Act on a transferee shall not impair the right of the transferees in good faith for consideration without notice of the previous transaction. In the instant case C having no notice of the previous transaction.Z. Subsequently a acquired a transferable interest in X. Does C get any legal protection in respect of his transaction? Ans 45: The right conferred by section 43 of the T. the subsequent mortgagee is. and his Chevrolet car to his younger son C. so far as it covers the mortgage debt. which he subsequently thereto transferred to another person C. and transferred the same by way of mortgage to one B.P.
2002 require registration? Specify the reason for your answer Ans 49: An agreement for sale is substantially different from a deed of sale. interest in the property from the transferor (seller) to the transferee (buyer). A intends to sell his Patna house to B at a consideration of Rs. Section 54 of the T. unlike a deed of mortgage or a deed of gift or a will. 2003. A shall execute and register an appropriate sale deed in favour of B by 15th of March 2003. Q49. does not require attestation by witnesses).10.000 by execution and registration of a sale deed in favor of B (such a document. Act provides that sale of a tangible immoveable property of rupees hundred or upwards can be effected only by a registered instrument. A deed of sale involves transfer of right.2002 B paid to A a sum of Rs.75.5 lakhs by the end of February.28 Lakhs and on 15. in the instant case A can sell his land at Kanpur fetching a sum around Rs. On 15. How can he lawfully make the transfer of his Kanpur land in favour of B.P.2002 both A and B entered into an agreement to transfer the property by A to B in the following terms. Act provides that sale of any tangible immovable property of value of one hundred rupees and upwards can be made only by a registered instrument. Accordingly.000/. the said cars may be gifted by the father to his sons either by a registered instrument or by delivery.The section further provides that for the purpose of making a gift of movable property. the transfer may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery. Does the agreement for sale dated 15. The section also provides that such delivery may be made in the same way as goods sold may be delivered. A has to sell his land at Kanpur by which he can fetch a sum around Rs. On such payment by B.10. In the instant case both the cars being movable properties. In order to bear the medical treatment of his son.P.. who is willing to purchase the same? Ans 48: Section 54 of the T. .8 lakhs by way of earnest money and as per terms of the agreement promised to pay Rs. Q48. title. 75.5 lakhs first by the end of November 2002 and so on and the last installment of Rs.10.
the parties to the document do not in fact transfer any right. title. interest in the property has to shift from transferor to the transferee and hence is also required to be registered compulsorily under the provisions of section 17 of the Registration Act. title. . interest in the property from each other. They only agree to transfer the property by appropriate document (Sale deed). unlike a sale deed.2003 require to be registered? Specify the reason for your answer. such property. Q51. which is required by law to be registered. title.e.10. title. In Q49 does the sale deed executed by A in favour of B by 15. of itself. limit or extinguish any right. i. by its execution (on receipt of consideration). interest in any immovable property is either created. assign. In a deed of sale. In Q49 does B acquire any interest in the subject Patna house on 15. Section 17 of the Registration Act provides that any non testamentary instrument which purports or operates to create. Q50.The Indian Registration Act 1908. a document professing to be an agreement to sale is not required to be registered. to or in any immovable property is compulsorily registrable. Accordingly. or extinguished or transferred. Section 47 of the Registration Act provides that in the absence of registration of a document.P. the right. declare. interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. the title in the property does not pass from the transferor to the transferee. In an agreement to sale. provides for the law relating to registration of documents.3. 10.2002? How early and in what manner can B acquire any interest in the said house? Ans 50: In the context of the facts B. on 15. 2002. Act provides that a contract for sale does not. the intending purchaser does not acquire any interest in the subject Patna house on the date of execution of the deed of agreement to sale. Hence in an agreement to sale. or charge on. (by virtue of that document) no right. Proviso to section 54 of the T. create any interest in.
Q53. Q52. interest in favor of the transferee and extinction of such right of the transferor and as such is required to be compulsorily registered in accordance with the provisions of section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act 1908. Act provides that at any time after the principal . title. In other cases a mortgage may be effected either by a registered instrument signed and attested as aforesaid.P. a mortgage other than a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds can be effected only by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses. When is such right available ? When is such right extinguished? Ans 53: A right of redemption is an invaluable right belonging to the mortgagor to redeem or get back his property mortgaged. Act provides that where the principal money secured is one hundred rupees or upwards.P. What is a right of redemption? Explain with illustration. or (except in the case of simple mortgage) by delivery of the property. Section 60 of the T.03. Hence the sale deed dated 15. In what manner is a transaction of mortgage effected? Ans 52: Section 59 of the T. Act provides that a sale of any tangible immovable property of the value of hundred rupees and upwards can be effected only by a registered instrument.2003 is required under law to be registered.P. Further section 54 of the T.Ans 51: A sale deed involves creation of right.
at any time after the mortgage money has become due and before a decree has been made for redemption of the mortgaged property. Q54. a mortgagor can legitimately exercise his right of redemption of the mortgaged property. and a suit to enforce it. This right is called the right to redeem. The mortgagor in exercise of this right can redeem his property until such right has not been extinguished by act of the parties or by a decree of a court. A suit to obtain a decree that a mortgagor shall be absolutely barred of his right to redeem the mortgaged property is called a suit for foreclosure.money has become due. to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver to the mortgagor the mortgaged deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged property which are in possession of the mortgagee. (b) where the mortgagee is in possession of the mortgaged property to deliver possession thereof to the mortgagor and (c) at the cost of the mortgagor retransfer the mortgaged property to him and (where the mortgage has been effected by a registered instrument) to have registered an acknowledgement in writing that any right in derogation of his interest transferred to the mortgagee has been extinguished. the mortgagor has a right. the mortgagee has. Such right of redemption is not lost merely on default in making payment by the mortgagor. a right to obtain from the court a decree that the mortgagor shall be absolutely debarred of his right to redeem the property. or the mortgaged money has been paid. What is a right of foreclosure? When can this right be exercised? Ans. is called a suit for redemption. 53: Section 67 of the TP Act provides that in the absence of a contract to the contrary. on payment. When a mortgagor makes payment of the mortgage money inclusive of interest on expiration of the stipulated period of loan. of the mortgage money. .
an English mortgagee. (On default of payment of the mortgage money inclusive of interest. and an anomalous mortgagee generally. is not entitled to bring a suit for foreclosure. The interest transferred in a simple mortgage is mortgagor’s personal covenant or obligation to the mortgagee the right to sell away the property in the event of mortgagor’s default in making payment of the mortgage money on expiration of the stipulated period. After two years. A mortgagee under an anomalous mortgage may also sue for foreclosure. . Q56. the sale shall be absolute.000/. otherwise not. On 15. but if A pays the amount to B as aforesaid. On 15. can be advised to go for a suit for sale. Accordingly.by 15. and not for a suit for foreclosure. Further.7. A failed to pay the mortgage money. A usufructuary mortgagee or a mortgagee by conditional sale is not entitled to institute of sale.2004. if the terms of the mortgage contain such provisions.25.8.2003 A defaulted in making payment as aforesaid and B contemplates to sell X to realize the due. a mortgagee on deposit of title deeds. can sue for sale.7.2001 A sold his house property X to B on condition that if A fails to pay to B Rs. Advise B. a simple mortgagee.A mortgagee. The transaction in question is a clear case of a simple mortgage. A borrows Rs. B shall have the right to sell X.000/. and in the event of his failure to pay. the mortgagee B.7. B as a mortgagee contemplates to sue A for foreclosure.) Q55. other than a mortgagee by condition of sale. as contemplated by him. Advise B Ans 55. while a mortgagee by conditional sale can sue for foreclosure. 00.for two years from B by mortgaging his house property X and personally binds himself to pay the mortgage money.5. a mortgagee under an anomalous mortgage is entitled to bring an action for foreclosure only if the terms of the mortgage enables him to do so. the sale shall become void and that B shall re-convey X to A.
Accordingly. so much so. the mortgagor failed to give possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee. The possession and the time period for which the possession is to be enjoyed by the mortgagee are very important in a usufructuary mortgage. shall become absolute. Accordingly. In a usufructuary mortgage on default of payment of mortgage money. Can the mortgagee institute a suit against the mortgagor? Ans. may not be adequate to adjust the whole claim of mortgaged money. A delayed delivery of possession by the mortgagor to the mortgagee. and to receive the rents and profits accruing from the property. the mortgagor delivers possession. and authorizes him to retain such possession until payment of the mortgaged money. 58 In case of usufructuary mortgage the essential requirement for the mortgagor is to deliver possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee. In a usufructuary mortgage. in a usufructuary mortgage. This is how the mortgagee can perfect his title in the concerned property. that the usufructs and the profits arising out of the mortgaged property shall adjust against the amount payable by the mortgagor to the mortgagee. or binds himself to deliver possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee. 56 The transaction in question is a clear case of mortgage by conditional sale. Accordingly. In case of such a mortgage the basic idea is to adjust the mortgaged money from out of the profits and usufructs of the property and the mortgaged property may be retained until the usufructs and profits of the property exhausts the amount due. the sale. . Q58. as per terms of the mortgage instrument. law does not require any further sale of the mortgaged property. 57. On default of payment of the mortgage money on expiration of the stipulated period by the mortgagor. can the mortgagee sue for sale or foreclosure of the mortgaged property? Ans. In a usufructuary mortgage. Q57. in such a case the mortgagee does not possess a legal right either to go for foreclosure or for sale. In such a situation law provides that such a mortgagee may sue for getting a decree of foreclosure so that the mortgagor shall be absolutely debarred of his rights to redeem the property. So B shall be advised to go for a suit for foreclosure and not for a suit for sale.Ans.
. Section 58 (f) of the T. in the absence of registration. Further. no documentation is required and accordingly. Act provides that a mortgage can be effected only by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witness. the requirement of registration is also held to be redundant. Ans. (This is neither a suit for foreclosure. such a mortgage can be effected in the specified area only by deposit of the documents of title of the concerned property with the creditors.) Q59. Section 59 of the T. Q. Comment on the legality of the transaction. Since the transaction takes place by mere deposit of title deeds.if the mortgagor fails to deliver the mortgage property in terms of the mortgaged instrument the mortgagee necessarily suffers and he has a right to bring a suit against the mortgagee. for possession of the mortgaged property. by mortgaging his house property X by an instrument to that effect executed by B and attested by C.P. Act provides that where a person in any of the towns of Calcutta. Accordingly the transaction suffers on those two counts. documents of title to immovable property.60 A took a loan from B. nor a suit for sale.P. Bombay or such other towns as notified in this behalf. there cannot be a valid mortgage transaction. which such a mortgagee cannot avail of. As per provision of law. 59. How is a mortgage by deposit of title deed effected? Does such mortgage require registration? Ans. namely C. In the instant case attestation was done by only one witness. with intent to create a security thereon the transaction is called a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Madras. delivers to a creditor or his agent. 60.
on paying back the amount due to the mortgagee on expiration of the stipulated period.Q. or gift of any property. the lender cannot be allowed to take advantage of his financial superiority and to force the borrower to agree to such a term. Such right is not extinguished until the court passes a decree for foreclosure. that is. always a mortgage’. the mortgagor. Elucidate . but subject to certain rights and interests transferred in favour of the lender or the mortgagee. . no contrivance in its terms and conditions shall be allowed to render the transaction to be anything other than a mortgage. ispo facto.A clog on the equity of redemption. which makes redemption of the property very difficult. divests himself or is striped of any right title interest in the concerned property and the right title interest is created in favour of the transferee. the concept emerged as ‘once a mortgage. and the borrower or the mortgagor retains his right title interest and ownership in the property. always a mortgage”. after a lawfully valid transaction to that effect. Stretching this concept to support redemption of mortgaged property from the hands of the mortgagee. which shall stand as an impediment in mortgagor’s way of redemption of the mortgaged property. Law does not permit any contrivance. But in a mortgage. does not loose his right of redemption forthwith. the property is held as a security for repayment of loan. A mortgage is basically a transfer of interest in specific immovable property for the purpose of securing a loan. or the mortgaged property is actually being sold away following a decree for sale. the mortgagor possesses a valuable right of getting back the property on redemption. 61. As a borrower is usually supposed to be in need to borrow money. So this is basically not a outright transfer of right title interest in the concerned property. Such condition is held to be a clog to be on equity of redemption and is treated as illegal and void in law. the transferor. In such a transaction. Law as well as equity support the mortgagor by ignoring such a condition and assist the mortgagor in redeeming his property. Hence. 61 Explain “once a mortgage. In a transaction of outright sale. law has always supported the concept that once a transaction is held to be a mortgage. Ans. On failure of the mortgagor to pay back the mortgage money to the mortgagee after expiration of the stipulated period.
be entitled as against the mortgagee to such accession. has during the continuance of the mortgage. the mortgagor. received any accession. Q. who shall be entitled to such improvement in the mortgaged property on redemption. 64. Section 63-A (1) of the T. Q. in the absence of a contract to the contrary. Act provides that where the mortgaged property in possession of the mortgagee. during continuance of the mortgage.63 If a mortgaged property in possession of the mortgagee.62 If a mortgaged property in possession of the mortgagee receives accession. who shall be entitled to the improvement on redemption? Ans. .P. and the mortgagor shall not be liable to pay the cost thereof. shall. 63. Section 63 of the T. being improved. if the improvement was effected at the cost of the mortgagee and was necessary to preserve the property. Act provides that where a mortgaged property in possession of the mortgagee. in the absence of a contract to the contrary. In Q. who is entitled to such accession on redemption of the mortgage? Ans. is improved.P. shall. 62. be entitled to the improvement. 63.Q. upon redemption. the mortgagor upon redemption.
first from out of property not mortgaged to him. .P.2000 by mortgaging X to C. then only B can enforce his mortgage as against X.3. Subsection 2 of section 63-A (1) of the T.P. in the absence of any contract of contrary. Y is not sufficient to liquidate the mortgage debt. not mortgaged to him. Q. Has C any legal right to protect his interest for realization of the debt owed by A to C? Ans. in the absence of a contract to the contrary. 65. Act provides that where any such improvement was effected which was necessary to preserve the property from destruction. On default in 2003. If.2000. In the instant case. or deterioration or was made in compliance of the lawful order of any public servant.e. the mortgagor shall. so that as its covers the debt. be liable to pay proper cost thereof in addition to the mortgaged money. the subsequent mortgagee is. 65 A borrows money from B for three years by mortgaging his two house properties X and Y to B on 7. Section 81 of the T.Ans. from Y. however. 64. i. C may require B to marshal the securities in such a way so that his mortgaged debt be satisfied.2. B contemplates to sell X and Y for realization of his mortgaged debt. Thereafter. A again borrows money from C for three years on 14. so far as the same may cover the debt. Act provides that if the owner of two or more properties mortgaged them to one person and then mortgages one or more of the properties to another person. entitled to have the prior mortgage debt satisfied out of the property or properties.
. 66. 67. If two properties X and Y valued Rs. Two farms X and Y are valued at Rs 20.. Act provides for contribution to mortgage debt. 66. 68.00. X and Y are mortgaged to secure a loan of Rs. 20.00.Act provides that a lease of immovable property determines (a) by efflux of time limited thereby.P. the ratable share to be borne by the properties would be in the proportion of 2:3 and the amount for which X and Y would be liable.000 respectively.000. 00.000 and 12.P. A house property X is charged to secure payment of a loan taken by A from B.68 A.000 and Rs 30.00.000 respectively and mortgaged to secure a loan of Rs.00. Section 82 of the T. 20. on default of payment a charge can be enforced only by sale of the property through the court.Q.P. Q. 20.4. A failed to repay the money with interest by the stipulated debt.00.000.1998 for a period of 10 years at a rental of Rs 50. would be 8.. Accordingly B may take step by instituting a suit to enforce his charge on the property so as to realize his dues.67.000 and 30. Act. Section 111 of the T.000 per English calendar year beginning from 1 st of April of any year to 31st March of the following year. What step B may take to realize his due? Ans.00. the owner of a huge agricultural farm lets out the same to B on 1. How can lessor A determine the lease after expiration of the stipulated period? Ans. What should be the ratable contribution from X and Y in respect of the debt? Ans.00. Q. When a property is made security for payment of money to another constituting a charge as contemplated in Section 100 of the T.000 respectively.
which provides on breach thereof. . Act provides that a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee. Act provides for determination of lease and section 111(g) provides that a lease can be determined by forfeiture.3. Q.P. on 15. In the instant case A can terminate the lease before 31. 40. 69. only if B’s action comes within the ambit of any of the provisions of section 111.P.2008? Ans. and any of this cases the lessor or his transferee gives notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease. that is to say. 106 of the TP Act to B.2002 terminating the lease. How early can A institute a suit for eviction of B on the basis of the said notice? Ans. Can A ever terminate the lease before 31. or (2) in case the lessee renounces his character by setting up a title to third person or to himself or (3) if the lessee is adjudicated an insolvent. 70. A lets out a field to B at an annual rental of Rs.70.000 per English calendar year from 1st January to 31st December.69 In Q.9.68 say there was a dispute between A and B. it automatically determines on expiration of the stipulated period and in such a situation there is no need to issue a notice determining the lease. by six months’ notice expiring with the end of a year of tenancy. A serves a six months notice under S. the lessor may re enter. Section 111 of the T. Q.2008.In the instant case the lease being for a specified period of ten years. (1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition.3. Section 106 of the T.
other than for agricultural and manufacturing purposes. the said fifteen days ending with the month of tenancy would commence only from 31 st to 14th of the following month. In the instant case the notice was served to B on 7. The tenancy commences from 15 th of any English calendar month to 14th of the following month. This period the lesse is likely to get from 31st January 2007 to 14th February 2007. Hence.72 B is the tenant of A in an area where TP Act is applicable. 71.2002. Here. As per provisions of said section 106. 72. and not on any date before that.Act provides that a lease of immovable property. A serves 15 days’ notice to B on 7th January 2007. if instead A had served the notice on B on 28 th January 2007. A can institute a suit for eviction of B on 1st January 2004. Here. the said six months ending with the year of tenancy would commence from July to December of any English calendar year. or for more than one year etc shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month. such a lease is terminable by fifteen days’ notice ending with the month of tenancy. Q.P. for year to year. As per provisions of said Section 106.2007. A can institute a suit for eviction of B on 15th of February 2007 and not on any date before that. how early could A institute a suit for eviction of B from the aforesaid tenancy on the basis of the said notice? .73 In Q.9. at the earliest. by fifteen days notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. Q.01. How early could A institute a suit for eviction of B from the aforesaid tenancy on the basis of the said notice? Ans. Hence at the earliest. such a lease is terminable by a six months notice ending with the month of tenancy. the lessee is likely to get only from July 2003 to December 2003. Section 106 of the T.In the instant case the notice was served to B on 15. terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee. This period.
75 B. A can institute a suit for eviction of B on 15th of February 2007 and not on any date before that. the lessor is not required under the law to prove any ground for achieving eviction of his tenant. Such laws specify that there shall not be any decree for eviction without one or more of the grounds having been satisfactorily proved before a court of law. there is no need for any such notice as is required to evict a tenant either under the TP Act or under the provincial rent legislations. (But. and inspite of A’s repeated requests to vacate the flat. Even after a passage of six months.Ans 73. in provincial rent legislations. (In such a suit. the only requirement to evict a lessee or tenant is to serve him either a six months’ or fifteen days’ notice expiring with the end of year of tenancy or month of tenancy. As B overstayed and did not vacate the concerned premises even after a passage of six months in spite of A’s repeated requests to vacate the flat. which are applicable in municipal areas. nor the licensor is required to prove any ground for eviction of the licensee. his colleague. B occupied the flat as a licensee. As A permitted B.74 In a tenancy where the TP Act is applicable. B did not do so. the lessee or the tenant gets the fifteen days’ period from 31st January to 14th February 2007. to find out a suitable rented accommodation. if the notice was served on the 28th of January 2007. In a tenancy where the TP Act is the governing law on the subject. as the case may be. 72. what ground or grounds the lessor needs to prove to evict his lessee? Ans. Such suit for eviction also precedes by usual one month’s notice expiring with the end of a month of tenancy. Q. 74.) . a colleague of A. the subject law requires the landlord-lessor to prove one or more of the grounds enumerated therein for eviction of the tenant. 75. at the earliest. and otherwise not. A can now evict B by instituting a suit for eviction of a licensee. Hence. A agreed to B’s proposal and allowed him to stay. In Q.) Q. to stay in A’s vacant flat for two months. How can A evict B from the said flat and recover possession of the same? Ans. approached A to permit B to stay in A’s vacant flat for two months to enable him to join the office on transfer and in the meantime. This apart.
) Q.78 B. erected a partition wall to bifurcate the dining space from the drawing room. A being aggrieved. the licensee suffers any loss. Q. In that view. if the license granted is subject to payment of fee and if. A license is basically in the nature of a personal covenant between the parties. more so in the nature of a personal prerogative of the grantor. a licensor is not at all required to prove any ground.Q.77 In Q. and made a second entrance of the leased property by converting a window to a door.75. the grantor can revoke such permission at any time as he desires and for eviction of a licensee. he may be compensated by the licensor but that will not stand in the way of eviction of the licensee even before the said two months. what step can he take against B in such a situation? . on account of eviction of a licensee following premature revocation of license. A could terminate the license and require B to vacate the flat even before the expiration of two months from his occupation. As a license is a personal grant. a lessee of A. He is at liberty to revoke the license or the permission at any time according to his desire. 75. (However.76 In Q. was it necessary for A to prove a ground on which B could be evicted? Ans. in A’s apartment. 76. without A’s permission. could A require B to vacate the flat even before two months? Ans. 77.
a notice to quit the property leased. without the lessor’s consent. such acceptance is not a waiver. offer a ground for eviction of the lessee B on that ground only. erect on the property any permanent structure. the lessee is bound to keep the tenanted premises in good condition and he must not. which A duly accepted. This payment of rent by the lessee and acceptance thereof by the lessor. amongst other requirements. the lessor. Q. Section 112 of the TP Act provides that a forfeiture under section 111. Section 113 of the TP Act provides that a notice given under Section 111. a lease between A and B was forfeited. The section also provides that. Q. 79. is waived.Ans. after the forfeiture of the lease constitutes waiver of forfeiture of the lease. 80. is waived by acceptance of rent which has become due since the forfeiture.79 In July 2004. or by any other act on the part of the lessor showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting. It is also provided that the lessor is aware that the forfeiture has been incurred. gives B. clause (h). or by distress for such rent. 78. clause (g). A gives to B a second notice to quit. It provides that. is not in consonance with the provisions of law and hence. the lessee. B paid rent to A for the months of August 2004 and September 2004. The notice expires and B remains in possession. What happens to the first notice? Ans. Section 108 of the TP Act provides for the rights and liabilities of the lessor as well as that of the lessee. There is nothing to indicate that B did not know about the forfeiture. In the instant case the lease was forfeited in July 2004 and B paid rent to A for the months of August and September 2004. . by any act on the part of the person giving it showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting. all without lessor A’s permission. B’s erection of a partition wall to bifurcate the dining space from the drawing room and making a second entrance of the leased property by converting a window to a door.80 A. where rent is accepted after the institution of a suit to eject the lessee on the ground of forfeiture. which A duly accepted. with the express or implied consent of the person to whom it is given. What happens to the forfeiture? Ans.
Q. B underlets the house to C at a monthly rent of Rs. as the case may be. 82. (Explain the provisions of Section 116 of the TP Act). but C continues in possession of the house and pays rent to A. In the circumstances B’s lease shall be deemed to be renewed from year to year. The five years expire. . In the circumstances C’s lease is renewed from month to month. or month to month. What is the legal consequence of such payment? Ans. 5000/-. the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under-lessee.81 A lets a house to B for 5 years. renewed from year to year. Section 116 of the TP Act provides that if lessee or under-lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease. when A gave to B a second notice to quit. In the instant case the original lease to B was for the life of C and even after C’s death B continues in possession with A’s assent. What happens to B’s lease in such a situation? Ans. 81.82 A lets a farm to B for life of C. or other wise assents to his his continuing in possession. but B continues in possession with A’s assent. the lease is. In the instant case as the original lease to B was for five years and B under-let the house to C.In the instant case as B continues in possession in spite of the notice to quit given to him. C dies. and on expiration of five years C continued in possession and paid rent to A. The effect of a second notice in the facts and circumstances of the case constitutes waiver of the previous notice. in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. Q.
000 and gives cash of Rs.000 and a small piece of land worth Rs. 22.00.20. B paid a cash amount of Rs. In the instant case in return for a property X worth Rs.00. as almost the entire amount is paid in cash. 84. Is this a sale or an exchange? Specify the reason for your answer. A made a gift of his farmhouse X to B.000 to B and B in return pays to A Rs.00.000 here the transaction in substance was an exchange even though a small amount of money constituted part of it. Section 118 of the TP Act provides when two persons mutually transfer the ownership of one thing for the ownership of another.000 to B. B in return transfers to A his house Y worth Rs.000.2.22.000 to B and B in return transfers to A his house Y worth Rs. It also provides that a transfer of property in completion of an exchange can be made only in manner provided for the transfer of such property by sale.000. the transaction can be termed as an exchange.Q. who was then in the USA.000 and gives cash of Rs.85 In 1990. (Specify the provision of Section 118 of the TP Act) In the instant case in return for a property worth Rs. This cannot be stated to be an instance of an exchange in substance.000. A died in 1998.00. 20. B came back to accept the gift.00. 20.00.00. Ans.20. Was B entitled to the gift.000. one of his sons.2.00.00.83 A transfers a house property X worth Rs. 22. 22. Is this a sale or an exchange? Specify the reason for your answer.000 in cash and a small piece of land worth Rs. In 2005. 83.00.2.84 A transfers his house X worth Rs. which was objected by A’s other son C. neither thing or both things being money only. Q.2. or was C’s objection valid? .00. Ans.00. Q.
Law’s requirement is attestation by at least two witnesses. Q. 87. In the instant case the gift of the farm house was made by A to B in 1990 and the donor A died in 1998. Section 122 of the TP Act provides that a gift is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration. It also provides that such an acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. with B’s assent.e. but a gift which the parties agree shall be revocable only or in part. A gives a farm to B. B cannot accept the gift in 2005 and the gift turns out to be void in law in 1998. B dies without descendant in A’s lifetime. Was the transfer valid? Ans. D. .86 A transferred X. called the donee and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. and E and which document was registered by the donor. Ans. reserves to himself. Section 123 of the TP Act provides that for the purpose of making a gift of immovable property. Section 126 of the TP Act provides that the donor and the donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked. It also provides that if the donee dies before acceptance the gift is void.Ans. as the case may be. Q87. Accordingly. Is this a valid gift? Can A take back the farm?. after the death of the donor. and attested by at least two witnesses. by a registered instrument of gift executed by A and attested by C. In the instant case the gift of the farm house was made by execution of deed of gift and attested by C. the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor. his farmhouse. by one person. i. 85. In that view his C’s objection is not without substance. it appears that B came to accept the gift in 2005. the right to take back the farm in case B and his descendants die before A. D and E. 86. Accordingly the transfer was lawful and valid. Here the attestation was done by three witnesses which is evidently in conformity with law. to another. called donor.
A could not recover the property from C.000/. In the instant case A transferred the property by gift to B. but is void as to Rs. A gives Rs.000. with B’s assent. reserving the right to revoke the gift if B failed to get himself enrolled at the bar.000/.20. who had no notice of the right of revocation. If B failed to enroll at the Bar.20. reserves the right to revoke the gift if B fails to get himself enrolled at the Bar. the right to take back at pleasure.000 at his pleasure.. Q88.000.1.80. sold the property to C. Q89. 88. A transfers a property by gift to B. Is the gift valid? Is B bound to return Rs. while in possession. The facts of the case indicate that B.000/. B while in possession sells the property to C. Rs. From the facts and circumstances it can be held that the gift holds good for Rs. is not in consonance with law on the subject. Ans. reserving to himself. who without notice of the right of revocation accepted it. even though with B’s consent. and with B’s assent. If B fails to enroll at the bar. . (Explain the provisions of Section 126 of the TP Act) In the instant case the right of donor A to take back Rs. (Explain the provisions of Section 126 of the TP Act).00.to B. A may take back the farm.if demanded by A subsequently?. which continued to belong to A.In the instant case since both A and B agreed to A’s taking back the farm gifted to B on condition of B’s descendants dying before A and B having died without descendants. as C was a bona fide transferee for value without notice of the right of revocation by A.20.20. 89. can the property be recovered from C? Ans.
Can B accept Y & Z only. and the others are not. Can C accept X & Y.from B. C shall be liable to pay Rs. A is owner of properties X & Y. B has to accept either the whole of the gift.75. including the onerous part of it or not at all. 75. If C accepts the gift from A. as the gift consists of donor’s whole property. ignoring to pay A’s debt of Rs. Section 127 of the TP Act provides that where the gift is in form of a single transfer to the same person of several things of which one is. burdened by an obligation. In the instant case.000/. Y and Z to B is made by a single transaction. 90.000/. leaving X? Ans.75. leaving X. 91.Z. B was at liberty to choose which of the gifts he would accept) Q91. although the former may be beneficial and the latter onerous. A by a single transaction gifts to B three properties X. the donee C shall be personally liable for all debts due and liabilities of the donor A. the donee is personally liable for all the debts due by and liabilities of the donor at the time of the gift to the extent of the property comprised therein. (If the said three properties were gifted to B by three separate instruments or transactions.Q90. In the instant case as the gift of three properties X. the donee is at liberty to accept one of them and refuse the others. Accordingly. A borrows Rs. It also provides that where the gift is in form of two or more separate and independent transfers to the same person of several things. Section 128 of the TP Act provides that where a gift consists of donor’s whole property. .Y.000/? Ans. the donee can take nothing by the gift unless he accepts it fully. Thereafter A makes a gift of X & Y to C. out of which X is burdened with obligation. B cannot accept Y and Z alone.from out of the properties X and Y he received from A by way of gift.
On 8th September 1995 A leased a property X to B. if defendant A fails to comply with the directions of the decree by execution and registration of an appropriate sale deed in favour of B. This signifies that irrespective of the date of registration of a document. the court shall execute and register an appropriate sale deed on behalf of the failing defendant. 92. Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act.000/.000/. but from the date of its execution. on application for execution of the decree by the decree-holder B. it shall be plaintiff B’s case to show before the court that he has performed his part of the contract and he is willing to perform his remaining part of the contract and shall deposit the unpaid balance amount of consideration in court at the time of filing the suit.000/-.00.00. B shall be advised to institute a suit against A for specific performance of the contract in question. all three documents were validly registered within the time limited therefor.000/.35. namely. In such a situation.5. He shall pray for a decree to direct A to perform his part of the contract.00. B’s document of lease being earliest in point of time.for X to A and thereafter A is making all endeavor to do away with the agreement with B. In the instant case.2.40. Since the registered documents operate retrospectively from the date of their execution. A shall prepare. execute and register an appropriate sale deed in respect of the concerned property in favour of B and shall deliver possession of the property to B. While instituting such a suit. On 5th December 1995 A mortgaged X to C. The two deeds of C were registered on 20th December 1995 and B’s deed was registered on 22nd December 1995. What shall B do to get the property? Ans. On 7th February. April and May 1996 respectively. now judgment-debtor. (After obtaining a decree for specific performance of contract.paid by B to A on 7. after accepting the remaining balance amount of consideration deposited in court. 93. notwithstanding its . if at all the possession was not yet delivered.) Q93.000/. involving transfer of interest from the transferor to the transferee.00. On 18th February.30.Q92.10. the document shall operate not from the time of its registration. Rs.00. 1996 A agrees to sale a house property X to B at a consideration of Rs. 1996 C offers a price of Rs. On 17th November 1995 A leased X to C. They agree that B should pay Rs. Can B maintain a suit for possession of X? Ans. and not from the time of its registration.each to be paid at the end of March.in 3 installments of Rs.1996 as earnest money. A. 1908 provides that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made.
Q96. The Sub-Registrar refuses to register the document. B’s document shall prevail over the other documents. B’s document was executed on 15. accordingly. 94. it shall be lawful for B to institute and maintain a suit for possession of X on the basis of his document. Who shall get the title in X? Ans. As per provisions of Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act. Thereafter A sales X to C on 18. It appears that B’s document was former in point of time and. But the facts indicate that A registered both the sale deeds on 22. (Explain the provisions of Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act). Who got the title in X? Ans. A registers both sale deeds on 22. Q95.registration took place after registration of C’s documents.10.1998. the effect of such registration was to give effect to the passing of title from the transferor to the transferee with effect from the respective dates of execution.) As any registered document operated retrospectively with effect from the date of its execution and not from the date of its registration.10.10.10.10. Q94. A registered C’s deed on 22nd October 1998 and B’s deed on 25th October 1998. A sold X to B on 1st October 1998 again A sold X to C on 15 th October 1998.10.1998. A sales X to B on 15. (Explain the provisions of Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act. What step B & A may take to register the deed? .1998 in respect of the same property.1998 and C’s document was executed on 18. which is earliest in point of time. 95.1998. In the instant case. the document executed former in point of time shall prevail over the document executed later on.10. shall prevail over C’s document. any registered document operates retrospectively from the date of its execution and not from the date of its registration.1998. both the documents in question in favour of B and C being validly registered within the time stipulated therefor. as both the documents were registered on 22. A executes a sale deed in respect of his house property X in favour of B and himself presents the deed before the Sub-Registrar and admits execution of the same. the documents shall be operative from the time of execution and. in that view.1998. Accordingly. in that view.
As being advised by her relation A refused to execute & register a sale deed in respect of X. under Section 72 or Section 76.10. in this case. So. She accepted Rs. Section 72 of the Indian Registration Act provides that except where the refusal of registration by the Sub-Registrar is made on the ground of denial of execution. calling in question the decision of the Sub-Registrar. may. if it be duly presented for registration within thirty days after the passing of such decree. Q97. can B go for a further appeal? Ans. Is the Court bound to pass a decree for specific performance of contract? . an appeal shall lie as against the order of a Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document to registration.000/. B or A may prefer an appeal before the Registrar. 97. Section 73 of the said Act provides that.Ans. her only homestead at a consideration much less than the market price of the property. B filed a suit for specific performed of contract. So.as part of the agreed consideration. In Q96 if the Registrar refuses to register the document. 98. to the Registrar. Q98. any person claiming under such document. which is also prohibited under Section 76(2) of the said Act but has to file a suit before the appropriate civil court for a decree directing the document to be registered. 96. when a Sub-Registrar has refused to register a document on the ground of denial of execution. A. what step B should take to register the document? Ans. in this case. Section 77 of the said Act provides that. may. So. within the local limits of whose original jurisdiction is situate the office in which the document is sought to be registered. institute in the Civil Court. enters into an agreement with B. B should make an application before the Registrar to have the document registered. a suit for a decree directing the document to be registered in such office. In Q. any person claiming under such document. a poor illiterate widow with 3 minor children. within thirty days after the making of the order of refusal. in this case. as against the decision of the Sub-Registrar. Q99. apply to the Registrar in order to establish his right to have the document registered. a solvent merchant to sell X. where the Registrar refuses to order the document to be registered.96 if A had denied executions before the sub-Registrar. B cannot go for a further appeal.
The instant case is one involves is a typical agreement. considering all aspects of the case. Can the agreement be specifically enforced? Specify the reason for your answer. In the instant case.000/. court may pass a decree for specific performance of contract against the lady.2007. the defendant may refuse to comply with the same. will be unenforceable. But if the contract or agreement is dependant on any personal skill of the other party. it appears that there was a lawfully valid agreement for sale of the homestead of the widow in favour of the rich merchant. 100. calls for an action for a decree for specific performance of contract. grant of such relief is ultimately the discretion of the court. the court may refuse to grant such a relief. the merchant filed a suit against her seeking a decree for specific performance of contract. otherwise. 99. he paid money to the lady.Ans. On this basis. yet. impartially. Q100. Ans. on breach by either party. judicially. and also considering that such a decree may cause immense hardship for the defendant lady. In the instant case. Even if the case for a decree for specific relief is proved. The plaintiff merchant can show and establish by adducing sufficient proof before the Court of law that there was a lawfully valid agreement and that. since the performance depends on the personal skill. justice and good conscience. and accordingly. quality and volition of the singer. On ultimate refusal by the lady to sell the property. depending upon fax and circumstances of each particular case. such an agreement cannot be enforced merely because the decree. a noted singer to perform for their club from 6pm to 9pm on 15th August 2007. He also paid Rs. For this show. tickets were already sold to the public. and that he was ready and willing to perform the remaining part of the contract. the court may direct return of the money with interest to the party paying the amount. if part-payment has been made. Young India Association. the court shall not pass a decree compelling her a performance (which she may refuse to do). In such a case. a club registered under the Societies’ Registration Act. in pursuance of the agreement. . which. A court will not make any endeavour to pass a decree which cannot be executed. notwithstanding that the case of the plaintiff otherwise stands on its own feet on merit. which discretion shall be exercised objectively.2007 A informed that she might not be able to perform for the club on that date. On 15. But the basis of Specific Relief Act is based on the principle of equity. entered into an agreement with A. Notwithstanding a decree. So a court is not bound to grant a decree for specific performance of contract merely because it is lawful to do so. On 1.8.7.to the widow lady as part of the agreed consideration. 10.
even though he did not . with the aid of this section. was forcibly dispossessed at the behest of B. Q102. But owing to a mistake of the scribe. the whole property was transferred. irrespective of his status. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. in effect the instrument in question did not express the real intention of the parties. In the instant case. (Explain the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Section 26 of The Specific Relief Act. as per provisions of Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act.102. in such a situation. notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. the whole property was transferred. but owing to mistake of the scribe. he or any person claiming through him may. Accordingly. a contract or other instrument in writing does not express their real intention. instead of the half share. A should be advised to institute a suit to have the instrument rectified.103. Q103. as A intended to transfer to B only a half share in the field. 101. cannot be rectified in any other way even by the parties agreeing to the same). by suit. through a fraud or mutual mistake of the parties. Suggest what legal remedy can A avail in this situation? Ans. if A’s status was that of a trespasser? Ans. provides that if any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law. So. 1963 provides that when. It also provides that such a suit is to be brought within six months from the date of dispossession. Accordingly. a tenant at B’s property. he may institute and maintain a suit for possession of the property from which he has been forcibly dispossessed. of which he was the lessee and from which he has been dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. B being a lessee. 1963. was forcibly dispossessed at the behest of the lessor A. recover possession thereof. after its registration. in which case. A. In Q102. then either party or his representative in interest may institute a suit to have the instrument rectified. A intended to transfer to B a half share in a field belonging to A. Advise A how the mistake can be rectified? Ans. should be dispossessed from any immovable property except in due course of law. what difference would have been there. Even a trespasser cannot be forcibly dispossessed.Q101. 1963.) What said Section 6 emphasizes is that no one. (The mistake in the document. B may be advised to institute a suit for possession of the property. In the instant case. But his only relief in such a suit shall be restricted to possession of the property only. 1963. instead of the half. The mistake was detected only after the original sale deed was received by the parties after registration.
interest in the property or that his possession in the property was unauthorized. title.have an iota of right. But his relief should be restricted to getting back the possession only. he may be dispossessed in due course of law by a person having a better title in the property. However. ********************************* .