Doctrine of Feeding the grant by Estoppel
Sec.43 of transfer of property act stated that when a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer, but does not possess the perfect title at the time of transfer, later on acquires interest in the property and such contract shall be subsists. Right to transferee can not be taken away who had acted in good faith for consideration and had no notice.
The principle in sec.43 is also called as doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel or doctrine of equity, here equity means which as done or which ought to be done, or sometimes both.
Doctrine of Feeding the grant by estoppel –
This doctrine applies, when a transferor having no interest in the property, but performs transfer of such immovable property and later on subsequently acquires interest in the such property and purchaser can claim benefit out of acquired interest of the transferor.
In general sense, when transferor fraudulently or erroneously represents and transfers such immovable property which he has no interest, transferee relies on his false representation. Thus feeding the estoppel is obligated on transferor and must honour his commitment. since the transferor can not escape from his prior commitment and must fulfil his grant.
Ingredients of sec.43 of TPA
1. Fraudulent or erroneous representation :
The primary aspect that was laid down in this sec.43 is that the transferor has no interest in immovable property during the time being of transfer of such property but with fraudulent or erroneous representation authorises such transfer, transferee relies on such representation and he acted in good faith. such purchaser has option to claim interest in the property as consideration paid for it, then sec.43 applies.
If the transferee was aware of the defective title of the transferor, then the sec.43 cannot be applied to claim benefit. unlike sec.41(transfer by ostensible owner) this section does not impose duty to take reasonable care by transferee.
In this section, fraudulent representation means dishonest, wrong, false, untrue or faulty statement either by words spoken or written, intended to believe it to be true and whereas erroneous representation means making errors while making the statement or document.
B.N. Raju and others Vs. M.K. Mudaliar, AIR 1998
The purchaser had purchased the property and was aware of rights of vendor, there was no evidence to show fraudulent or erroneous representation by the vendor.
the court held that sec.43 does not comes into play.
2. Subsequent acquisition :
when the transferor transfers an immovable property, which he has no interest during the time being of such transfer, but later on acquires interest in the property, such interest is transferred to transferee and prior contract subsists.
the sec.43 is based on doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel and comes into light, when the transferor has no interest during the transfer and acquires later interest and if the transferor had lesser interest but performs the transfer the beyond, the enlargement of lesser interest is regarded as subsequent acquisition.
B.S.D. Mahamandal, kanpur vs Prem Kumar, AIR 1985
Three daughters were inherited their father’s property as a limited estate and divided among the three daughters, one of the daughters sold her exclusive possession. subsequently her other sister died and other sister entitled to entire estate and he was only survived as last owner. The court held that property hit the provisions of sec.43 that principal of feeding the estoppel by grant.
3. Transferee’s option :
this sec.43 provides transferee option either to subsists the contract or wait until transferor subsequently acquires interest in the property that to be transferred to him and also transferee under indian contract act sec. 17 and 18 can revoke and claim damages.
Transferee to claim he must be aware of the acquisition of interest of transferor or he must be keep in track of such acquisition and demand such interest to him.
4. Bonafide Purchaser :
As said above, the transferee must demand the interest to him is late, then taking this advantage the transferor transfers the property to other bonafide purchaser then the rights of first transferee is void and right of bonafide purchaser shall prevails without notice.
section 43 Vs. section 6(a) of Transfer of Property Act
sec.6(a) states spes successionis that means hope or expectation of legal heir to succeed to the property of the deceased. such spes successionis is invalid and hence can’t be transferred.
sec.43 applies only to immovable property whereas sec.6(a) applies to both movable and immovable property and another aspect to be remember that there is no fraudulent or erroneous representation stated under sec.6(a)
Landmark case law
Jumma Masjid Mercara v. Kodi Maniandra Deviah
Facts of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over property. Certain individuals, who at the time of the transfer only had a “spes successionis” (a mere chance of inheriting the property), transferred it to another party. The question before the court was whether this transfer was valid under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, despite being prohibited by Section 6(a).
Judgment:
The court held that Section 6(a) and Section 43 deal with different aspects of property transfer:
Section 6(a): Deals with the prohibition of transferring certain types of interests (like “spes successionis”).
Section 43: Deals with the principle of estoppel, where a person who represents themselves as having the right to transfer property can be bound by that representation if they later acquire the right to that property.
The court concluded that these two sections are not mutually exclusive and can operate independently. Therefore, even if a transfer is initially prohibited by Section 6(a), it may still be validated under the principles of estoppel outlined in Section 43 if the necessary conditions are met.
