(2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases 173 : (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Civ) 301 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 152 J 2

In the Supreme Court of India

(BEFORE L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.)

TANU RAM BORA . . Appellant;

Versus

PROMOD CH. DAS (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS . . Respondents.

Civil Appeal No. 1575 of 2019†, decided on February 8, 2019

Property Law — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — S. 43 — Object — Embodies doctrines of estoppel and equity — Applicability — Transferee must act, or have acted, upon
transferor's representation, fraudulent or erroneous

— Transferee purchased for consideration immovable property on being misled by and acting upon representation, fraudulent or erroneous, made by transferor that he was
authorised to transfer though property was declared as ceiling surplus land at that time, but later transferor acquired right, title and interest when property again declared ceiling
free land — Held, S. 43 attracted — Hence at the option of transferee, transfer would be treated as valid — Thereafter vendor's suit for cancellation of sale would not be
maintainable

The original plaintiff purchased the suit land by a registered sale deed dated 6-1-1990 from the husband of original Defendant 2 and father of original Defendants 3 to 8 on payment of full sale consideration. At
that time the suit land was ceiling surplus land and the Government was the owner. However, subsequently on 14-9-1990, the land was again declared ceiling free land. Thereafter, the original plaintiff mutated the
land in his name vide order dated 18-12-1991 and accordingly, the name of the original plaintiff was recorded in the Sadar Jamabandi. Neither the vendor nor the vendor's heirs challenged the order dated 18-12-
1991. However, in 1995, it was alleged, Defendant 1 illegally entered into the suit land. Therefore, the original plaintiff filed suit seeking possession, decree of declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit
land and permanent injunction. The trial court decreed the suit specifically holding that the original plaintiff purchased the suit land by valid document and has got right, title and interest over the suit land. The
judgment of the trial court was not challenged by Defendants 2 to 4. But the original Defendant 1 filed appeal. The first appellate court remanded back the matter to the trial court, framing an additional issue as to
whether the suit land was declared ceiling surplus land and was acquired by the Government and as such whether the vendor had any saleable right to sell the land to the plaintiff in 1990. On remand, the trial
court, considering the additional issue, held that the land having been declared as ceiling surplus land by the Government, the vendor had no right to sell and therefore, the plaintiff had no right, title and interest
over the land. The first appellate court, while confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, further recorded that the defendants' rights over the suit land also could not be established under
Section 53-A of the TP Act. Original

   Page: 174