PROPERTYLAW CASES(

19TO35)
Casesar
esummarizedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,
8299556360

MuhammadRazav
.AbbasBandi
Bibi
,(1932)
Fact&i
ssue-oneHhadtwowi
vesandt
hepr
oper
tywasset
tl
eduponbot
hthewi
vesi
n
equal sharesasar esultofacompr omisethatthemanagementoft hisproper
tywaswi t
ht he
husbanddur inghislif
etimebutt hepropertywast obeinheri
tedbytherespecti
vewives’heir
s.
Further,thewiveswer enotempower edtosel lt
hepropert
ytoastranger.Uponthedemiseof
thehusband, W1sol dt hepropertytoA, W diedanduponherdeath,herheircl
aimed2/3rdshare
i
nt hepr opert
ynowwi thA,clai
mi ngthatsinceW wasnotempower edtosellt
hepropert
yt oa
str
angerwhi chshedi di ncl
earviolati
onoft hetermsofthecompromi seandsettl
ement,the
ali
enat i
onwasv oi
d,andAdi dnotacqui reanyt i
tl
etoit.

Deci
sion-Thecourthel
dthatev
ent
houghshewast
heowneroft
hepr
oper
ty,
shet
ookt
he
propertywit
har estr
aintonherpower sofal
ienati
on.Ther est
rai
nthowev erwasnotanabsolute
rest
raintwhichispr ohibit
edbot hundertheActasal sounderEngli
shl awbutwasapar ti
al
rest
raintwhichwasv alid,enforceableandbindingonher .Asshewasnotcompet entt
osellthe
propertyt
oast r
angeri nlightoft hi
sparti
alr
estraint
,thesalewasinvalid.Whati
st obenoted
hereisthatar estrai
ntont hepowerofal i
enati
on“ nottoselli
ttoastrangeroroutoffamil
y’’
wasconsi deredasapar t
ialrestrai
ntandnotanabsol uterest
rai
nt.

ManoharShi
vram Swami
v.MahadeoGur
uli
ng
Swamy,1988
i
ssue-whetherthecondi
ti
onputi
nthesal
edeed,
thatCwoul
dnotsel
lthepr
oper
ty,
except
toapersonintheJangam f
ami
ly,
washitbysect
ion10?Di
ditr
est
rai
nCabsol
utel
yfr
om
ali
enat
ingtheproper
tyorwasi
tonlyapar
ti
alr
estrai
nt?
Deci
sion-Thecourthel
dthatt
hecondi
ti
oni
ncor
por
atedi
nthesal
edeed,
absol
utel
y
rest
rai
nedC,fr
om parti
ngwithhi
si nt
eresti
ntheproper
tyandtheref
orewasvoid.Thecourt
thusuphel
dthevali
dit
yofthesal
eaf fect
edbyB.Thisdeci
sionoftheBombayHi ghCourt
comesasasur pr
iseasthecondit
ionhereinfactwasnottosel
loutofthefamil
y,whichi
na
numberofcaseshasbeenhel dt
obeapar t
ialr
est
rai
nt,
andbindingonthepart
ies.

Condi
ti
onrestrai
ningthet
ransf
ereef
rom t
ransf
err
ingt
oast
rangeri
.e.out
sidet
hef
ami
l
y,was
anabsol
uterestr
icti
on.

Casesar
esummarizedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,
8299556360

Zoroast
ri
anCo-operati
veHousingSociet
yLtd.v
.
Dist
ri
ctRegi
str
ar,Co-op.Soci
eti
es(Urban)(
2005)
Fact
-Asoci
etywasr
egi
ster
edundert
heBombayCo-
oper
ati
veSoci
eti
esAct
,wi
tht
heobj
ect
ofconstructi
nghousesforresi
dent
ial
pur
poses,
andaccor
dingtothebyelaws,
themember
shi
p
wasr est
rict
edonlytoParsi
s.Thebyel
awsal
socont
ainedacondit
ionthatnomembercoul
d
al
ienatethehousetonon-Parsi
s.

i
ssue-Whethercl
ausei
ntheby
elawst
hataper
soncoul
dsel
li
tonl
ytoPar
sisandnott
oa
non-
Par
siwasapar
ti
alr
est
rai
ntoranabsol
uteone?

Deci
sion-TheApexCourtal
l
owedt
heappeal
andhel
dthatwhenaper
sonaccept
sthe
member shi
pofaco- operativ
esoci et
ybysubmi tti
nghimselftoit
sby el
awsandpl aceson
hi
msel faqual
i
fiedrestr
ictiononhisr i
ghttotransf
erproper
tybyst i
pulati
ngthatsamewouldbe
tr
ansferr
edwit
hpr i
orconsentofsoci et
ytoaper sonquali
fi
edt obeamemberoft hesociet
y,i
t
couldnotbeheldtobeanabsol uterestr
aintonali
enati
onof f
endingsection10oftheTPAct ,
1882.Hence,i
tsetasidet hefindi
ngoft heHighCour tt
hattherestr
icti
onplacedonr i
ght
sof
member sofasocietynott osellt
hepr opert
yallot
tedtononPar si
swasanabsol uterest
rai
nton
al
ienati
onasunsustainable.

TheSupr
emeCourthel
dthatt
hiscl
auseinthebyel
awsthatapersoncoul
dsel
li
tonl
ytoPar
sis
andnott
oanon-
Parsiwasaparti
alr
est
raintandnotanabsol
uteone.
Casesar
esummarizedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,
8299556360
K.Muni
swamyv
.K.Venkat
aswamy
(2001)
Fact
-afami
l
yconsi
stedoff
atherF,
mot
herM andt
wosonsS1andS2.Thepar
ti
ti
ondeed
provi
dedaf t
erthedeathofparent
s,thi
spr opertywastobeparti
tionedequal l
ybet
weenS1and
S2.Thi screati
onoflif
einter
estmeantthatt heparent
shadnopowert oal i
enatet
hepropert
y
duri
ngt heirli
fet
ime.Theparentsaft
erpartit
iontookpossessi
onoft hepr opert
yandthenlat
er
solditthroughar egi
ster
edsaledeedtoS1.S2chal l
engedthevalidi
tyofthesaleontheground
thatsincethepar ent
shadnopowerofal ienation,t
hesaleaff
ectedbyt hem wasinval
id.

i
ssue-whetheral
i
fei
nter
estbecr
eat
edbyadeedofconv
eyance,
oroft
ransf
erofpr
oper
ty
bysal
e,i
fthepr
oper
tyi
str
ansf
err
edabsol
utel
y?

Deci
sion-Thecourtobservedthatthecharacteroftheestate,whetherl
i
mit
edorabsol
ute,
didnotdependpur elyonthet ermsorexpr essionsusedt odescr ibeitbuthast obet akeni
n
total
ity,l
ookingatt hesubst ance,andt hei ntent i
onoft heparties.Thishast obegat heredby
l
ookingt otheent i
redocumentasawhol e.Her e,thecour tconcl uded,t hattheuseoft he
expressions, ‘
eachoft hem shoul dgett hei rkhatkaoft hepr oper tyi
nt hei rnames; shouldenjoy
thepr opert
iesi nthemannert heylike’,showscl early
,thatwhatwasgr ant edtot hem wasan
absoluteest ateandnotal i
mi tedinteresti nt hepr opert y
.Insuchanev ent ,thecour theldthata
restr
icti
on,pr ohibi
tingthem absolut elyfr om t r
ansf err
ingt hepr opert
y,amount edt oanabsol ut
e
restr
aintonal ienati
onandwast herefor e, badi ntheey esofl aw.Thi sshowst hathadi tbeena
creati
onofal imitedestateint hefirstpl ace, onlythencoul dthiscondi tionhav ebeenoper ati
ve.

Tul
kv.Moxhay(
1848)
Fact
-Int
hiscase,
X,t
heownerofv
acantl
andandsev
eral
housessur
roundi
ngi
thadsol
dthe
vacantl
andt oE, whocov enantedthathewouldkeepitinthesamecondi t
ionbycar r
yingout
suff
ici
entandpr operrepairs.Thegroundpassedbydiverseinter
medi
aryconv eyancewiththe
samecov enant.Final
lyYpur chased,andhewantedtoconstructabui
ldingthereon,al
thoughhe
hadnoticeofCov enant.Xfiledasuitandaninj
ecti
onrestrai
ningwhyfrom buil
ding.

i
ssue-Thei
ssueher
ewasnotmer
elywhet
hert
hecov
enantt
hatdoesnotr
unwi
tht
hel
and
canbeenforcedbutal
so,
whetherapar
tyshal
lbepermi
tt
edtousethel
andi
namanner
i
nconsi
stentwitht
hecont
ractent
eredi
ntobyhi
ssell
erwi
thnot
iceofwhi
chhepur
chased.
Casesar
esummarizedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,
8299556360
Deci
sion-Thecourtl
aiddownt
orul
es

1.Cov
enant
sbet
weent
het
ransf
erorandt
heor
igi
nal
transf
ereear
eal
way
senf
orceabl
e.

2.Negat
ivecov
enant
sar
ebi
ndi
ngont
hesubsequentt
ransf
ereewi
thnot
ice.

Thecour thel
dthatnoonepurchasi
ngwi t
hnoticeofequi
tycanst
andi
nadif
fer
entsi
tuat
ion
fr
om thatofthepartyf
rom whom hepurchased;andther
efor
eX,whowasawar
eofthe
condi
tionsinthecontr
act
,ir
respect
iveofthei
rcharact
er,
wasboundbyi
t.

Ram Newazv
.Nankoo(
1926)
Fact
-A,executedasal
edeedofhi
sland,
Ifnoneofmyl
i
neal
descendant
sisal
i
vei
nmy
family
, t
henthesai
dlandshal
lbedeclar
edt obet heownproper
tyoftheBandhishei
rsandthe
personsofmyf amil
yshal
lhavenoclaimtot hesame.Aft
erthedeathofA'
sissuel
essson,a
disputearosebet
weentheBandther ever
sionersofA.

Deci
sion-Thecourthel
dthatt
hiswasacondi
ti
onr
epugnantt
othel
aw,
andt
he(
B),
coul
d
notsetupt hisdocumentasentit
li
ngthem topossessi
onofthepropert
y.Thecourtdeci
dedi
n
favourofther ev
ersi
oners/
hei
rs.Theref
ore,whet
hertherei
sav i
olat
ionoftherul
eagainst
perpetui
tyornoti st
obeseenf r
om thetermsandconditi
onsastheyappearonpaperandnot
whatactuallyhadhappened,i
.e.
,indeci
dingthequesti
onofremotenessregar
dmustbehadt o
thepossibleandnott oact
ualevent
s.

whil
eexaminingthet
ransf
erofpr
oper
tyundersect
ion14,t
hecour
tsl
ookatthepossibl
e
ev
entsaccordingtot
hetermsoft
hedeedandnottheactualev
ent
sonthedat
eoftransfer
.

Ram Bar
anv
.Ram Mohi
t1967
i
ssue-whetherapre-empti
oncl
auseexecut
edbyt
hepar
ti
eswoul
dbehi
tbyt
her
uleagai
nst
per
pet
uit
ies.

Deci
sion-Thesupremecourtobservedandhel
dasf
oll
ows

1.Thecourtref
erredt
ot heprov
isi
onsoftheSpecif
icRel
iefact1963t
ostatethatacont
racti
s
enfor
ceablebyandagainsttheassi
gnee/tr
ansfeesoft
heor i
ginal
par
ti
es.Pri
ma-faci
e,t
he
ri
ghtsofthepart
iestothecontr
actareassi
gnable.
Havi
ngregar
dtothecont
ractandci
rcumst
ancesinthepr
esentcase,
iti
scl
eart
hatpr
eempt
ion
cl
ausemustbeconst
ruedasbindi
ngupontheassi
gnees.

2.Ther ul
eagainstper pet
uitydoesnotappl ytocont ract
s,whichdonotcr eateri
ghtsofproper
ty.
Ther ul
easformul atedFallswithinthebranchofoft hel
awofpr opertyanditstwoobjecti
sto
restr
aintherestr
icti
onoff utureconditi
onalinterestinpr
opert
y .Thisprovi
sionwassupportedby
readi
ngsection14al ongwithsect i
on54oft heTPA.accor di
ngt osection54,acontr
actfor
saleofpropertydoesnotofi t
selfcreat
eanyi nterestint
heproper t
y.

Thesupremecour
theldt
hatrul
eagai
nstper
pet
uit
ycannotbeappl
i
edtoacov
enantof
preempt
ionev
enthoughther
eisnoti
melimi
twit
hinwhicht
heopti
onhast
obeexerci
sed.

Casesar
esummarizedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,
8299556360
R.Kempr
ajv
.Bur
tonSon(
1970)
i
ssue-whetheranopti
ongi
vent
oal
essee(
tenant
)togett
hel
ease,
whi
chi
sini
ti
all
yfora
per
iodof10y
ear
s,r
enewedaf
terev
ery10y
ear
sishi
tbyt
her
uleofper
pet
uit
yandi
svoi
d.

Deci
sion-Thecourtobservedthati
tiswel
lknownt
hatt
her
uleagai
nstper
pet
uit
yis
foundedont hepri
nci
plethattheli
ber
tyofal
ienat
ionshal
l notbeexerci
sedtoit
sown
destr
uctionandthatal
lcontri
vancesshal
lbevoidwhichtendtocreateaperpet
uit
yorpl
ace
propert
yf orev
eroutofthereachoftheexer
ciseofthepowerofalienat
ion.

Itwasheldt
hatsecti
on14isappli
cableonlywhentherei
sat ransferofpr
oper
tyandt
heclause
contai
ningr
enewalaft
erever
y10y earscanbynomeansber egardedascreat
ingani
nter
estin
proper
tyofthenat
urethatwoul
dfallwit
hintheambitofsect
ion14.

Raj
eshKant
aRoyv
.Shant
iDebi
,1957
Fact
-atrustwascreatedbyAforthepaymentofdebtsandthesurpl
uswast
obeusedf
or
thebenef
itofAandhist
wosons. Thetr
ustdeedalsopr
ovi
dedthatt
hetrustwastocometoan
endwiththetot
alpay
mentofdebt sandthedeat
hoftheset
tl
orandthentheproper
tywast
o
vesti
nthetwosonsortothei
rlegalhei
rsasthecasemaybe.

i
ssue-Thei
ssuebef
oret
hecour
twasr
egar
dingt
henat
ureofi
nter
estcr
eat
edi
nfav
ouroft
he
sons,
whet
heri
twasv
est
edorcont
ingent
.
Deci
sion-Thecourthel
dthatt
hei
nter
estoft
hesonswasav
est
edi
nter
estandt
her
efor
e
coul
dbeat t
achedbyt hecourtandobserved:
…i tappearstousr easonablecleart
hatthe
i
ntenti
onofthesett
loristhatasregar
dsthei nterestofthesonwi t
hr especttoal
ltheproper
ti
es
comprisedt
herei
n,i
sv estedinti
tl
ebutrestri
ctedi nenjoymentsolongast heset
tl
orisali
veand
thedebtsar
enotdischarged.

Casesar
esummarizedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,
8299556360
Jay
aram Mudal
i
arv
.Ay
yaswamy
,1973
i
ssue-Coul
dsect
ion52af
fectt
hei
nter
est
sconv
eyedi
npubl
i
cauct
ionhel
dint
ermsofl
aw?

Deci
sion-Pri
vat
esal
eoff
ami
l
ypr
oper
tybyaKar
tapendi
ngasui
tforpar
ti
ti
oni
nst
it
utedby
amemberi shitbysecti
on52,anddoesnotbi ndthefamil
y.Thepurposeofsecti
on52ofthe
TransferofPropertyActi
snottodefeatanyjustandequit
ablecl
aim butonl
ytosubj
ectthem t
o
theauthorit
yoft hecour
twhi
chi sdeal
ingwiththepropert
ytowhichclaimsareputf
orward.Pr
e
-
existi
ngliabil
i
tiesofKart
aal
onehav enopriorit
yovertheri
ghtsofothermemberofthej
oint
famil
y.

I
tmaybenot edthattr
ansf
erpendent
eli
teisnotvoi
dbuti sonl
ysubj
ecttoout
comeofthe
l
i
tigat
ionthetr
ansfer
eeonlyt
akestheti
tl
eoftransf
erorsubj
ecttot
heresul
tofpendi
ng
l
i
tigat
ion.

Supr
emeGeneral
Fil
msExchangeLt
dv.Mahar
aja
Si
rBri
jnat
hSi
nghj
iDeo,
AIR1975
i
ssue-Therewasari
ghti
nspeci
fi
cimmov
abl
epr
oper
tydi
rect
lyandspeci
fi
cal
l
yinquest
ion.

Deci
sion-TheSupremeCourthel
dthatsi
ncet
heear
li
err
ightcr
eat
edi
nfav
ouroft
het
enant
waswi ththehel pofadocumentt hatwasi ncapableoft aki ngeffectinlaw.Si
ncet hi
screati
on
waspendent eli
te,thi
stransferofar ightwouldbehi tbyt her ul
eofl i
spendens.Consequent l
y,
thetenantwast otaketheleasei nhisf av
oursubj ecttot heout comeoft hedeci
sionofthe
court.
Ther esultwouldbet hathewoul dhav etov acatethepr emises.Ifhehadanant ecedent
ri
ghtcreatedi nhisfavourpriortot hecommencementoft hesuit,t
henhewoul dhav ebeenabl e
toretai
nthepossessi onoft hepr emi sesaspert het er
msoft helease.

Buti
nthepr
esentsi
tuat
ion,
sincet
hel
easewasexecut
edi
nthei
rfav
our
,whi
l
ethesui
twas
pendingi
nacour
tofl
awawai
ti
ngdeci
sion,
ther
ight
soft
het
enantwer
esubj
ectt
othedeci
sion
ofthecourt
.

Wher ethefi
li
ngofthesui tandt het
ransferofthesuitpropert
ytakesplaceonthesameday ,
thereisnopresumptionthatt hesui
twasf il
edearl
ierandi tmustbeprovedthatitwassofi
led,
andt heonusofprovi
ngi tisont hepersonwhowant st hebenefi
tofli
spendens.Asui tt
o
enforceatimebarredpre-existi
ngri
ghtisforthecreati
onofanewr i
ght,andistheref
orehi
tby
l
ispendens.

Casesar
esummarizedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,
8299556360
Sri
JagannathMahapr
abhuv
.Pr
avatChandr
a
Chatt
erj
ee,1992
i
ssue-Thi
smat
terhascomebef
oret
hisFul
lBencht
oconsi
dert
hecor
rect
nessoft
he
decisi
onofaDi v
isionBenchofthi
sCourtinthecaseofPranakrushnav.UmakantaPanda,
AIR
1989Or i
ssa148, layi
ngdownt her
ulethati
nasui tf
ordecl
arati
onoft i
tl
eatransf
ereef
rom t
he
defendantpendent eli
tei
sneit
heranecessarynoraproperpartyandisnotenti
tl
edtobe
i
mpl eadedinasmuchashewoul dbeboundbyt hedecreei
nt hesuit
,havi
ngregardtot
he
pri
ncipl
escont ai
nedi nSect
ion52oftheTransferofPr
opertyAct.

Deci
sion-Whenamoti
oni
smadebyt
heLi
spendenst
ransf
ereet
obei
mpl
eadedasapar
ty,
t
hecour tmay,i
nexist
enceofi
tsdi
scret
ionjudi
cial
l
y,addhim asproperpartytopr event
multi
pli
cit
yofsuit
sandtoprot
ecthi
sinter
ests.Thi
sparti
esaffect
edbyt hetransferpendent
e
l
it
eareundernoobl i
gati
ont
oimpli
edalispendenstransf
ereeapar t
ytot hepartyt othe
l
it
igat
ion.

Dal
i
pKaurv
.JeewanRam,
1996
i
ssue-whethertheproceedi
ngsi
naci
vi
lappeal
bef
oret
heSupr
emeCour
tinpur
suanceof
thegrantofspeci
all
eaveunderArt
icl
e136oftheConsti
tut
ionofI
ndiaareaconti
nuati
onof
proceedi
ngsintheori
ginal
sui
t,andift
hepr
inci
pleofl
ispendensappl
iestosuchproceedi
ngs.

Deci
sion-Thecourthel
dthatpendenceycont
inuesf
rom t
het
imet
hepl
anti
spr
esent
edt
o
thepropercourtti
ll
iti
sfinall
ydisposedof,andcompletesat
isf
act
ionordischar
geofthedecree
i
seitherobtainedarehasbecomeobt ai
nablebecauseiti
sti
mebarred.Evenaft
ert
hedismissal
ofsuit
,Apur chaseissubjectt
oLispendensi fanappeali
sther
eaf
terfil
ed.Thi
sissoevenifan
appeal
isfi
l
edbeforethesupr
emecour
tinpur
suanceoft
hegr
antofspeci
all
eav
eunderar
ti
cle
136oftheConst
it
uti
onofIndi
a.

Casesar
esummarizedbyABHI
SHEKKUMAR
MISHRA,CLC,
8299556360
Pomal Kanj
iGov
indj
iv.Vr
ajl
alKar
sandasPur
ohi
t
(1989)
i
ssue-Thei
ssueagai
nwast
her
ightoft
hemor
tgagor
stor
edeem t
hepr
oper
tybef
oret
he
st
ipul
atedper
iodof99y
ear
s.

Deci
sion-Thecourtobserved,Freedom ofcontracti
sper
missi
blepr
ovi
dedi
tdoesnotl
ead
totaki
ngadvantageoftheoppressedordepr
essedpeople.Thelawmustt ransf
ormi t
sel
ftot
he
social
awareness.Pover
tyshouldnotbeundul
ypermitt
edt ocur
tailone'
srightt
oborrowmoney
onthegroundsofjust
ice,equi
tyandgoodconsci
enceonj ustt
erms.Ifitdoes,i
tisbad.Whet
her
i
tdoesordoesnot ,must,however,
dependuponthefact
sandci rcumstancesofeachcase.

I
nthepresentcase,
t hewhol eamount ,
i.
e.,
theloan,theinter
estandreimbursementf
or
demoli
ti
ons,andconst r
ucti
ons, et
cwast obepaidonl yattheti
meofr edemption,
whichwoul
d
makeredemptionpractical
l
yi mpossibl
e.Theterm of99y earscoupl
edwi t
hthesecondi
ti
ons
werehel
dascl ogont hemor tgagor'
sri
ghtofredempt i
on.

Shi
vdevSi
nghv
.SuchaSi
ngh(
2000)
i
ssue-thei
ssueagai
nwast
her
ightoft
hemor
tgagor
stor
edeem t
hepr
oper
tybef
oret
he
st
ipul
atedper
iodof99y
ear
s.

Deci
sion-Thecourthel
dthatt
hecondi
ti
onpost
poni
ngt
her
ightofr
edempt
ionf
oraper
iod
of99yearsforameagresum amountedtoaclog;moresoasthemort
gagorwashardpressed.
Thelat
erpronouncementsappeart
obeinfavouroft
reat
ingl
ongter
m mortgagesascl
ogont he
ri
ghtofthemortgagort
oredeem hi
sproepr
ty.I
nacase,

Theapexcour thasobser
ved:
Amor t
gagecannotbemadeal toget
herirredeemableor
redemptionmadeill
usory
.Int
hecont
extoffastchangi
ngcir
cumst ancesandeconomi cstabi
l
ity
,
l
ong-ter
mf orr
edempti
onmakesamor t
gageani l
l
usorymortgage,thoughnotdecisi
ve.I
tshould
pri
maf aciebeanindi
cati
onastohowclogsonequityofr
edempt i
onshoul dbejudged.