SECTION:43-

DOCTRINE OF FEEDING THE

GRANT BY ESTOPPEL
[Transfer of property act]
by: Prerna Agarwal
Bballb1834
6th semester
 Section 43 says -Where a person Fraudulently or erroneously represents
that he is authorized to transfer certain property & Professes to transfer
such property for consideration Such transfer shall ,at the option of the
INTRODUC transferee ,operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in
TION such property at any time during which the contract subsists.
  The doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel is based on the maxim
‘nemo dat quod nonhabet which implies that no one can give to
another, which he himself does not possess’.
 This general rule lays down that no property can be transferred by
any person who is not authorized to do so.
ESTOPPEL  The doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel compels a man to
BY DEED perform when the performance becomes possible. It does give the
transferor the option of going ahead with the transfer, it then
completely depends upon the transferee if he is still willing to go
ahead with the transfer after the transfer becomes a viable option.
  Fraudulent or erroneous representation-
(dishonest, deceitful, wrong,untrue) the benefit of this section cannot be
availed by the transferee if he did not believe the representation to b
true & act upon that.
 Transfer for consideration-
ESSENTITA Not applicable for gratuitious tranfers. Only transfer for
LS value(mortgages,sale,exchange,leases)but not charges or gifts.
 subsequent acquisition-
of interest it shall pass to transferee at their option &time during which
contract subsists(unless rescinded or extinguished)
 Acc. To sec.6(a) chance of heir apparent to get the property in future is
a non transferable right(void ab intio)but acc. To sec 43 validates
SECTION:6 transfer made without title when the transferor subsequently acquires
the property.
&
SECTION:43
JUMMA

MASJID v/s Facts- heir apparent sold his would be share I joint property to M
for rs300,became entitled to property later-M invoked 43,other part
KODIMANI- contended its void ab initio
 Held –M entitled to get protection and SC observed that Sec.6(a)-
ANDRA rule of substantive law &sec.43 based on estoppel (rule of
DEVIAH evidence)

[1962]
THANK YOU!