NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

PROPERTY LAW-I – SIXTH TRIMESTER PROJECT

AN ANALYSIS OF

CIVIL APPEAL NO.188-189 OF 2018

Danamma@Suman Surpur & Anr …Petitioner(s)

V.
Amar & Ors …Respondent(s)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

DECIDED ON : 1/2/2018

JUDGES : [HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. BHUSHAN]

[HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A SIKRI]

BENCHTYPE : DIVISION BENCH

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

DURGESH N.YADAV PROF. KAVITA SINGH
ROLL NO: 2018 BALLB 72
SECTION: B (SECOND YEAR)

Page 1 of 14
 ENROLLMENT NO: A-1979

CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE.......................................................................................................................................................3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................................................................................4

REVIEW OF LITERATURE.................................................................................................................................5

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................................................6

FACTS....................................................................................................................................................................7

ISSUES...................................................................................................................................................................8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED................................................................................................................................9

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELANT..................................................................................................................9

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT............................................................................................................9

CONCRETE JUDGEMENT................................................................................................................................11

RATIO DECIDENDI...........................................................................................................................................12

CRITICAL COMMENTS....................................................................................................................................13

BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................................................14

Page 2 of 14
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project paper titled Danamma@Suman Surpur & Anr v. Amar & Ors has been
prepared and submitted by Durgesh Nandan Yadav, who is currently pursuing his BA LLB (Hons.) at
National Law Institute University, Bhopal in fulfilment of the Property Law course. It is also certified this
is original research report and this paper has not been submitted to any other university, nor published in any
journal.

Date :
Student’s Signature :
Teacher’s Signature :

Page 3 of 14
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper has been made possible by the unconditional support of many people. I would like to
acknowledge and extent my heartfelt gratitude to Ms. Kavita Singh for guiding me throughout the
development of this paper into a coherent whole by providing helpful insight and sharing their brilliant
expertise. I would also like to thank the officials of the Gyan Mandir library, NLIU for helping me to
find the appropriate research material for this study. I am deep indebted to my parent, senior and friend
for all the moral support andencouragement.

Page 4 of 14
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

 Textbook on the Transfer of Property Act, Avtar Singh

The book is divided into different sections masking it easier for the reader to read out the topic. The
chapters have headings and sub-headings which makes it easier to understand each and every topic.
Short notes and practical problems for important topics have been provided at the end of the chapters.

Page 5 of 14
 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1. To identify and analyze the changes in the law governing the property rights of women before and
after the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force.

Page 6 of 14
 MATERIAL FACTS

 The appellants were the daughters of the propositus (in this case, Gurulingappa Savadi) of a Hindu
Joint Family.
 The propositus also had two sons, namely, Arum Kumar and Vijay.
 Money was allegedly invested by the appellant on the purchased land for improvements.
 The original grantee made an application for the initiation of proceeding under Section 4 of the
Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition and Transfer of Certain Lands) Act,
1978, hereby ‘The Act’.
 The Assistant Commissioner passed an order in favor of the original grantee for restoration of the land
as per the provisions of the Act.

Page 7 of 14
 ISSUES

1. Whether Section 51 of the Transfer of Property. Act is applicable in the cases covered by Sections 4
and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain
Lands) Act, 1978?

Page 8 of 14
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELANT: -

1. The appellant had purchased the land in dispute on 13.09.1962 i.e., before the commencement of the
Act, therefore Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable in the present case.
Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act states that:
“When the transferee of immoveable property makes any improvement on the property, believing in
good faith that he is absolutely entitled thereto, and he is subsequently evicted therefrom by any person
having a better title, the transferee has a right to require the person causing the eviction either to have
the value of the improvement estimated and paid or secured to the transferee, or to sell his interest in
the property to the transferee at the then market-value thereof, irrespective of the value of such
improvement…..”
Therefore, the appellant should be entitled to the benefits given under the Transfer of Property Act.

No arguments were advanced by the counsel for the respondent in the present case. So, the following
arguments are the reasoning and observations made by the court which were in favor of the respondent and
which could have been advanced by the counsel for the respondent.

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: -

1. The Transfer of Property Act does not apply to a transfer made by operation of law because Section
2(d) of the Transfer of Property states that:
“In the territories to which this Act extends for the time being the enactments specified in the schedule
hereto annexed shall be repealed to the extent therein mentioned. But nothing herein contained shall be
deemed to affect -…. (d)save as provided by section 57 and Chapter IV of this Act, any transfer by
operation of law or by, or in execution of, a decree or order of a Court of competent jurisdiction….”
2. By Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of
Certain Lands) Act 1978, through an orderit is directed to the authorities that if any illegality specified
in the Act are discovered, the granted land can be restored. Section 4 contains a non obstante clause.
The aforementioned argument is further supported by the following lines of the judgement given in the
case ofManchegowda and others vs. State of Karnataka and others1:
“With the enactment of the Act, the voidable right or title of the transferee in the granted lands
becomes void and the transferee is left with no right or property in the granted lands. The lands
which are the sought to be recovered from the transferees of the granted lands are lands in which the
transferees cease to have any interest or property. The effect of the provisions contained in Sections 4
and 5 of the Act is that the defeasible right or interest of the transferees in the granted lands is

1
1984 3 SCC 301
Page 9 of 14
defeated and the voidable transaction is rendered void. We have earlier held that it is clearly open to
the Legislature to declare void the transfers of granted lands in contravention of the condition of
prohibition on transfer. As soon as such transfers are rendered void by virtue of the provisions of the
Act, the transferee does not have any right in the granted lands so transferred, and possession is
sought to be recovered of such lands in which the transferees have lost their right and interest...”

Page 10 of 14
 CONCRETE JUDGEMENT

Supreme Court:
1. Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to inter vivos transfer and does not apply to a
transfer made by operation of law.
2. The provisions of the Transfer of Property Act do not apply to the cases where a judicial order has
been passed to restore the land back to a member of Scheduled Tribes in terms of purport and object of
the statute.

Page 11 of 14
 RATIO DECIDENDI

1. An order can be passed under a special statute can be replaced or supplemented with reference to
another statute only and only if a provision exists in the special statute regarding the same.

Page 12 of 14
 CRITICAL COMMENTS

In the present case, the Supreme Court has passed the judgement in concurrence with the provisions of the
statutes and judgements passed by the it before the cases. But the provisions of the statute, which in the
present case is the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain
Lands) Act, 1978 has failed to provide relief to the grantee of a land granted before the commencement of
the Act. The Supreme Court in this case and in the case ofManchegowda and others
vs. State of Karnataka and others2, has failed to appreciate the observations made by the High Court
inKrishnappa S.V. and others vs. State of Karnataka & others3. The following were the observations:
“Thus, if an alienee of a granted land is evicted by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the
Act, the alienee may remove standing crops and fixtures put by him in such land. He may sue his
alienor for the return of the purchase money. He can also claim from the original grantee or his heirs
of whom such land is restored, the value of the improvements made by him in that land. The right to
get such return of the purchase money and the right to claim the value of such improvements, will
mitigate to some extent the hardship caused to the alienee of a granted land when he is evicted
therefrom under Section 5 of the Act.”
In the present case the land was granted by the original grantee to the appellant. Both of them knew the
subsequent grant of land is in contravention to the terms of the original grant. Therefore, according to me the
amount of financial burden or hardship should be borne by both the original grantee of a land and the
appellant in this case.

2
Ibid.
3
ILR 1982 (2) Kar, 1310
Page 13 of 14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Transfer of Property Act, 1882

 Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act,
1978
 Singh, A. and Kaur, H. (2009). Textbook on the Transfer of Property Act. 2nd ed. Delhi [India]:
Universal Law Publishing.
 Manchegowda and others vs. State of Karnataka and others., 1984 (3) SCC 301
 Krishnappa S.V. and others vs. State of Karnataka & others., ILR 1982 (2) Kar, 1310
 India, l. (2020). Special Acts and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Harish Chandra Hegde v.
State of Karnataka. [online] Legalservicesindia.com. Available at:
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2289/special-acts-and-the-transfer-of-property-act-1882-
harish-chandra-hegde-v-state-of-karnataka.html [Accessed 6 Mar. 2020].

Page 14 of 14