S.S.

JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE

CONCEPT OF NOTICE

2019-2020

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT

SUBMITTED BY : SUBMITTED TO :

NAME: GAURAV KUMAR SHARMA MS NISHTHA ACHARYA

CLASS : B.A. L.L.B. IVTHyr.VIITHsemester

SECTION : B

ROLL NO : 9
CONCEPT
OF
NOTICE
 DECLARATION

I, Gaurav kumar Sharma, do hereby declare that, this dissertation titled "CONCEPT OF NOTICE ” is an
outcome of the research conducted by me under the guidance of Prof. MS NISHTHA ACHARYA (Asst.
Prof. of law) at S.S. Jain Subodh Law College in fulfillment for the award of the degree of B.A.L.L.B. at the
University of Rajasthan.

I also declare that, this work is original, except where assistance from other sources has been taken and
necessary acknowledgements for the same have been made at appropriate places. I further declare that, this
work has not been submitted either in whole or in part, for any degree or equivalent in any other institution.

Date: 01-01-2020

Place: Jaipur

Name of Student: Gaurav kumar Sharma

(i)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I acknowledge with profundity, my obligation to almighty god and my parents for giving me the grace to
accomplish my work, without which this project would not have been possible.

I express my heartfelt gratitude to my respected faculty, Prof.MS NISHTHA ACHARYA (asst. prof. of
law) for providing me with valuable suggestions to complete this dissertation.

I am especially grateful to all my faculty members at SS Jain Subodh Law College who have helped me
imbibe the basic research and writing skills.

Lastly, I take upon myself, the drawbacks and limitations of this study, if any.

Date: 01-01-2020

Place: Jaipur

Name of Student: Gaurav kumar Sharma

(ii)
 CERTIFICATE

Certified that the project work on the topic “CONCEPT OF NOTICE” submitted by GAURAV KUMAR
SHARMA for the partial fulfillment of the degree B.A. L.L.B VIITH semester offered by the S.S.Jain
Subodh Law College during the academic year 2019-2020 is an original work carried out by the student
under my supervision and this work has not formed the basis for the award of any degree, diploma, or such
other titles.

Prof. MS NISHTHA ACHARYA

Asst. prof. of law

S.S. Jain Subodh Law College

(iii)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR. NO. TOPIC

1. INTRODUCTION
2. THREE KINDS OF NOTICES
3. RELATED CASE LAWS

(iv)
 INTRODUCTION

The Transfer of Property Act 1882 is an Indian legislation which regulates the transfer of property in
India. It contains specific provisions regarding what constitutes a transfer and the conditions attached to it. It
came into force on 1 July 1882.

According to the Act, 'transfer of property' means an act by which a person conveys the property to one or
more persons, or himself and one or more other persons. The act of transfer may be done in the present or
for the future. The person may include an individual, company or association or body of individuals, and any
kind of property may be transferred, including the transfer of immovable property.

Notice

A person is said to have a notice of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for willful
abstention from an inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, hewould have
known it(Section3).
 THREE KINDS OF NOTICES

(a) Actual or express notice

(b) Constructive or implies notice

(c) I mputed notice.

Actual notice: A person is said to have actual notice/express notice of a fact if he actually knows it. It must
be definite information given in the course of negotiations by person interested in the property. A person is
not bound to attend vague rumors.

Constructive notice: It is a notice which treats a person who ought to have known a fact, as if he actually
knows it. A person has constructive notice of all tile facts of which he would have acquired actualnotice had
he made those inquiries which he ought reasonably to have made. Constructive notice has roughly been
defined as knowledge which the court imputes to a person upon a presumption so strong that it cannot be
rebutted that the knowledge must be obtained.

Legal presumption of knowledge arise when-

(1) There is willful abstention from an enquiry or search. It means willfulor deliberate abstention to take
notice of a fact which a reasonable man would have taken in the normal cause of life. It is such abstention
from enquiry or search as would show want of bona fides in respect of a particular transact on.

Illustration

(i) A contracts to sell his house to B. The house is on rent and B knows that the tenants have been paying the
rents to C. B has constructive notice of the right of C to take rents from the tenants.

(ii) A propose to sell his property to B,who at the same time knows that rents due in respect of the property
are paid by the tenants to a third person X. B will be fixed with notice of the right of X. (Hunt v.Lack.
(1902) 1Ch 429.]
(iii) A refuses a registered letter, which contains information relating to property which A propose to
purchase. A will be deemed to have notice of the contents of the latter. (Ismail Khan ' v.KaliKrishna, (1901)
6 CalWN 134]

(2) Gross negligence: Negligence means carelessness or omission to do such act which a man of ordinary
prudence would do. Doctrine of constructive notice applies when a person, but his gross negligence would
have known the fact. Mere negligence is not penalised. It should be high degree of neglect. In Hudston
v.Viney, (1921) 1 Ch 98, Eve J. said, "Gross negligence does not mean mere carelessness, but means
carelessness of so aggravated a nature as to indicate an attitude of mental indifference to obvious risk." It
can be described as 'a degree of negligence so gross that a court of just ice may treat it as evidence of fraud,
impute a fraudulent motive to it and visit it with the consequences of fraud'.

In Ltoyds Bank Ltd.v.P . E. Guzders and Co.Ltd.,(1929) 56 Cal 868, a person A deposited title deeds of his
house in Calcutta with Bank. And to secure the loan he had taken from the bank. Subsequently, A
represented the Bank that intending purchases of the house wanted to see the title deeds. The bank returned
the deeds to A who deposited the deeds with the plaintiff bank in order to secure a loan. It was held that the
Bank ,on account of gross negligence in parting with the deed has lost its prior rights with respect of the
house.

In Imperial Bank of I ndia v. U.Raj Gyaw, (1923) so IA 283, a purchases was informed that the title deeds
were in possession of a bank for safe custody and omitted to make any inquiry from bank It was held that he
was guilty of gross negligence and was deemed to have notice of the rights of the bank which had the
custody of the deeds.

Registration as notice: Explanation to Section 3 provides that ' where any transaction relating to
immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument,any person
acquiring such property or any part, or share or interest in such property shall bedeemed to have notice of
such instrument as from the date of registration,'Thus any person interested in the transaction which is
registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act,1908 cannot plead that he has no notice of the
transfer made under the deed.
In order that, registration may be treated as constructive notice of its content, following conditions must be
satisfied:

(i) The instrument must be compulsoriy registrable.

(ii) All the formalities prescribed under the Registration Act are duly completed in the manner prescribed.

(3) The instrument and particu l ars must be correctly entered in the registers.

After registration, document becomes a public document and the title can be confirmed in the Registrar's
office.

(4) Actual possession as notice of Title: Explanation of Section 3 provides that, "any person acquiring any
immovable property or any share or interest in such property shall be deemed to have notice of the title, if
any, of any person who is for the time being in actual possession thereof. "Thus in order to operate
asconstructive notice, possession must be actual. i.e., de facto possession. It amounts to notice of title in
another, e.g.,A leased a house and garden to B who takes possession of the properties. A then sells the said
properties to C is deemed to have constructive notice of B's rights over these properties, i.e.. C cannot plead
that he had no knowledge (notice) of the fact of B's possession on the properties [Deniels v. Davison, (1809)
16Ves 240].

Imputed notice

Explanation to Section 3 provides that, "A person shall be deemed to have had notice of any fact if his agent
acquires notice thereof whilst acting on his behalf in the course of business to Which that fact is material:

Provided that, if the agent fraudu lently conceals the fact, the principal shall not be charged with notice
thereof as against any person who was a party to or otherwise cognizant of the fraud"

This is based on the maxim Quifacitper alium facit per se, i.e.. he who does by another, does by himself. In
Mohori Bibee v. D. Gliosh, (1903) 30 Cal 539, held that although the principle was absent from Calcutta and
did not take part in the transaction personally, his agent in Calcutta stood in h is place for the purposes of the
transaction and the acts and knowled ge of the latter were the acts and knowledge of the principal.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Sumeet Malik. PROPERTY LAW MANUAL (Hard Bound) (2014 ed.). Eastern Book

Company. p.  1–968. ISBN 9789351451150.
 www.wikipedia.com
 www.indiankanoon.com
 www.legalserviceindia.com
 www.legalbites.com
 www.legalaims.com

(v)