You are on page 1of 5



1977 SCMR 208: S. 41-Transfer by ostensible owner --The argument

also overlooks the fact that Bashir Ahmad and Abdul Haq, the two
contesting respondents, are transferees for value from the original
rightholders and it is nobody's case that they were privy to any fraud or
misrepresentation alleged against their predecessors-in-title. Therefore,
on no discoverable principle can Bashir Ahmad and Abdul Haq be
penalized for any fraud or misrepresentation if any by their
predecessors- in-title unless they are pari delicto with their vendors.

PLD 1983 SC 53: -- S.. 41-Scope of S. 41-Section 41-A statutory

application of law of estoppel, making an exception to rule that no
person can confer a better title than he himself has-Principle underlying
section : One of two innocent persons having to suffer by the act of a
third person he who enabled third person to occasion loss must sustain

PLD 2005 K 288: S. 41---Incomplete transfer---Protection of S.41 of

Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Scope---Transfer as mentioned in S.41
of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, includes incomplete transfers also, as
scheme of S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is based on a
principle---Not providing the protection to the incomplete transfers by
the ostensible owner fulfilling all the essential requirements of S.41 of
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, would be absurd.

Transfer by ostensible owner, principle of--- Applicability---Land owned

by Karachi Port Trust was acquired by Karachi Development Authority
and the same was converted into plots---Karachi Development
Authority leased out the plots to different persons and plaintiff was also
one of such lessees--Plaintiff had only constructed boundary wall
around his plot and had not completed construction---Karachi Port
Trust issued notice to plaintiff for removal of his encroachment over the
plot---Contention of plaintiff was that after acquisition of land, Karachi
Port Trust had nothing to do with the plots leased out by Karachi
Development Authority---Plea raised by the Trust was that the transfer
in favour of the Authority was incomplete---Validity---After delivery of
possession of land by Karachi Port Trust to Karachi Development
Authority -in the year, 1965, the latter had been dealing with it as its
owner---Authority had allotted the plot to plaintiff and received
consideration thereof---When hundreds of persons were being
allotted/transferred the plots by the Authority as owner it could
legitimately be inferred that plaintiff got the allotment in good faith,
taking care about the competency of the Authority to transfer the
same---Even if the defendant's plea about final transfer of land was
accepted, then also the allotment of the plot in question in favour of
plaintiff was a transfer by ostensible owner and no essential element of
S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was wanting---Karachi Port Trust
had no locus standi to resume the plot in question on the ground of
invalidity of its allotment---Only Karachi Development Authority could
take decision about the allotment in accordance with law and terms of
allotment---Allotment of plot in question to plaintiff was not affected by
the decision of the Trust and possession of allottee over it could not be
treated as unauthorized---Notice issued by the Trust was declared
without legal effect and the Trust was restrained from interfering with

the possession of plaintiff over the suit plot---Suit was decreed


2006 CLC 978: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41---Cancellation

of grant of land---Suit for declaration---Suit land which was resumed
under Martial Law Regulation No.115 from its original owner was
granted to a person under Land Reforms Act, 1977---Grantee of land
sold the same to another person and finally it was purchased by the
petitioner by means of a registered sale-deed and mutation of said sale
was also sanctioned in his favour---Subsequently Deputy Commissioner
and then Additional Commissioner cancelled said grant from the name
of original grantee without affording opportunity of hearing to
petitioner/vendee---Section 16(2) of Land Reforms Act, 1977, did not in
any manner, dispense with provisions of natural justice where grantee
had actually transferred land to bona fide purchaser for value---
Appellate Court, in circumstances had misdirected itself and exercised
its jurisdiction illegally by holding that it was not necessary to give a
notice to petitioner/vendee from original grantee before resuming
land---Land Commission and Board of Revenue, were responsible for
ensuring that restrictive covenants, if any, attaching to grant of land
under Land Reforms Act, 1977, were duly noted in Revenue Record, but
that was not done in the present case---Successive transferees of land,
in circumstances could not have had any notice of restrictions imposed
on grant made in favour of grantee/vendor---Authorities, in
circumstances, were themselves responsible for creating circumstances
which would mislead a bona fide purchaser/petitioner---Authorities
therefore, were estopped from resuming land---Last vendor of land in
dispute was quite clearly ostensible owner of said land and mutation
did not include any indication that land was granted to grantee subject

to restrictive covenants and could not be sold---Four essential

ingredients of S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, stood fulfilled in
the case---Courts below having acted illegally in exercise of their
jurisdiction, their judgments and decrees, legally were not maintainable
and were set aside.

2006 SCMR 1689: Ss. 41 & 44---Purchaser in good faith for value---
General principle of law being that no person could transfer right or
title in property more than what he possessed---Principle contained in
S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was an exception to such general
principle, which was based on equitable doctrine of estoppel.

2007 YLR 1636: ----Ss. 41 & 54---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.17---
Transfer by ostensible owner on basis of sale deed procured by fraud---
Validity---Subsequent transferee would still he entitled to protection of
S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

----S. 41---Enquiry regarding vendor's title---Sale between parties

finalized through Property Dealer, who checked Jamabandi and sale
deed reflecting 'vendor's name---Validity---Such evidence would be
sufficient to show due diligence on the part of vendee and would
satisfy requirement of S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Transfer by ostensible owner on basis of sale deed procured by him by

fraud through an impersonator, as original owner was dead at relevant
time---Legal heirs of deceased owner neither obtained in their favour
mutation of inheritance nor asserted proprietary and possessory rights
in suit property for more than twenty years---Effect---Legal heirs
through such conduct had enabled such ostensible owner to deal with

suit property be owner and make representation that he was vested

with title therein and entitled to convey same---Legal heirs by not
getting their names brought on revenue record had induced innocent
purchaser to purchase suit property---If ostensible owner had
committed fraud and procured sale deed in his favour through an
impersonator, then legal heirs would have had right against such
ostensible owner and not against subsequent vendee, against whom
there was no evidence that he had acted fraudulently or had knowledge
that original sale deed in favour of ostensible owner was void---Legal
heirs could not be allowed to defeat title of subsequent purchaser---
Suit by legal heirs was dismissed in circumstances.

PLD 2013 Lah 517: S. 41---Transfer by ostensible owner---Title of the

owner---Scope---Ostensible owner does not mean complete owner
without any defect.

----S. 41---Transfer by ostensible owner---Silence of real owner---Effect--

-When at the time of transfer of property by ostensible owner in favour
of any person who is a person claiming title and interest in the property
remains silent on that transfer that means that he has impliedly
admitted that transfer.