TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT

Property Law Exam Notes

Section 3. Interpretation clause.—
In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context,—

“immoveable property” does not include standing timber, growing crops or grass;

‘‘instrument ” means a non-testamentary instrument ;

1[“attested”, in relation to an instrument , means and shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument , or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executants, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary;]

“registered” means registered in 2[3[any part of the territories] to which this Act extends] under the law4 for the time being in force regulating the registration of documents;

“attached to the earth” means—
(a) rooted in the earth, as in the case of trees and shrubs;
(b) imbedded in the earth, as in the case of walls or buildings; or
(c) attached to what is so imbedded for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of that to which it is attached;

5[“actionable claim” means a claim to any debt, other than a debt secured by mortgage of immoveable property or by hypothecation or pledge of moveable property, or to any beneficial interest in moveable property not in the possession, either actual or constructive, of the claimant, which the Civil Courts recognize as affording grounds for relief, whether such debt or beneficial interest be existent, accruing, conditional or contingent;]

6[“a person is said to have notice” of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for willful abstention from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it.

Explanation I.—Where any transaction relating to immoveable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument , any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration or, where the property is not all situated in one sub-district, or where the registered instrument has been registered under sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), from the earliest date on which any memorandum of such registered instrument has been filed by any Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district any part of the property which is being acquired, or of the property wherein a share or interest is being acquired, is situated:]
Provided that—
(1) the instrument has been registered and its registration completed in the manner prescribed by the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), and the rules made there under,
(2) the instrument or memorandum has been duly entered or filed, as the case may be, in books kept under section 51 of that Act, and
(3) the particulars regarding the transaction to which the instrument relates have been correctly entered in the indexes kept under section 55 of that Act.

Explanation II.—Any person acquiring any immovable property or any share or interest in any such property shall be deemed to have notice of the title, if any, of any person who is for the time being in actual possession thereof.

Explanation III.—A person shall be deemed to have had notice of any fact if his agent acquires notice thereof whilst acting on his behalf in the course of business to which that fact is material:

Provided that, if the agent fraudulenotly conceals the fact, the principal shall not be charged with notice thereof as against any person who was a party to or otherwise cognizant of the fraud.

COMMENTS

Constructive notice of the suit agreement
The defendanots failed to make necessary inquiry in respect of possession of the suit land by going to the site or from neighbouring land owners. Therefore, it has been held that constructive notice of the suit agreement shall have to be imputed to defendanots in view of actual possession of the suit land being with the plaintiffs; Murlidhar Bapuji Valve v. Yallappa Lalu Chaugle, AIR 1994 Bom 358.

Meaning of word "Immovable"
The word "immovable" means permanenot, fixed, not liable to be removed and the property must be attached to immovable property permanenotly; Shree Arcee Steel P. Ltd. v. Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd., AIR 2005 Kanot 287.


1. Movable/Immovable Property ( Sec 3 )

Concept of property;
The term ‘property’ has not been defined in the Act. When Section 6 of the Act says ‘property of any kind’ it implies every possible interest or right that can be possessed and is a subject of ownership. It can be tangible or inotangible. It can be a physical object or something abstract. Property of different kinds is dealt with differently. The movable property is dealt with under the Sales of Goods Act, 1930 while the major chunk of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with immovable property. Section 3 of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882 is called the Inoterpretation clause for it explains the following terms.

Movable and Immovable property definitions
DEFINITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
Immovable property is a species of property. Whenever we speak about immovable property, we always use the ready reference of ‘attached to the earth’. Whether a thing is permanenotly attached to the earth, whether it is capable of separation or not and what is the intention behind the construction or promoted growth of the property are a few of the poinots that need to be looked inoto.

The definition of immovable property as per the Transfer of Property Act is a negative definition. The Section 3 reads that “immovable property” does not include standing timber, growing crops or grass”. Standing timber refers to trees that are fit for usage in building or repairs. Growing crop includes all such vegetables, etc that are solely grown only for their produce. Grass is referred to as fodder.

Section 3(26) of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 is not an exhaustive definition. It says that “Immovable property shall include land, benefits arising out of land and things attached to the earth, or permanenotly fastened to anything attached to the earth.” It specifies the following as immovable property.
a) LAND. It encompasses the upper as well as the lower surface of the earth. Any interest in the same will be treated as that of immovable property. It would include wells, streams etc.
b) BENEFITS ARISING OUT OF LAND. This category includes everything dealing with rights and interests in land as defined above. Right to collect rent or zamindari rights are two examples.
c) THINGS ATTACHED TO EARTH. The nature of attachmenot is importanot.

This clause is explained with reference to the following thereee poinots:
a) Things rooted in the earth like trees, shrubs but not including standing timber, growing crops and grass. Jamun trees are treated as immovable properties.
b) Things embedded in the earth like buildings, minerals etc. By ‘embedded’ we refer to things that have their foundations laid well below the surface of the earth. An anchor of a ship is not immovable property in its normal usage.
c) Things that have been permanenotly fastened to anything embedded in the earth for the purpose of permanenot enjoymenot. For example, ceiling fans, doors and windowas. If the objects that have been attached are merely transitory or not permanenot and do not conotribute to the value and purpose of the thing attached to, they are not immovable properties.

To determine whether a fixture is permanenot or not, the following poinots need to be considered:
a) Mode of Annexation: Temporary, standing on its own weight or dug in to the earth, etc.
b) Purpose or Object of Annexation:

Trade fixtures are to be treated in association with the business and not the land as the fixtures are attached in connection with the business. Such fixtures are to be treated as accessory to the business and not as annexation. The position is different if the person attaching the fixtures in a business place is the owner himself.
When it is a machinery in the factory, the court has to see the object and purpose of such installation. The beneficial enjoymenot of the machinery itself, the degree and the manner of attachmenot or annexation on to the earth are other poinots for consideration.
The Section 2(9) of the INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 gives out the physical aspects of property in the definition present in the said Act. The definition under the Act is as followas, “Immovable Property includes land, buildings, hereditary allowances, rights of ways, lights, ferries, fisheries or any other benefit arising out of land and things attached to the earth but not standing timber, standing crops or grass.”

CONCLUSION OF VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
All the definitions read together can give us a clear idea what is included or excluded from being an immovable property. They do not define immovable property per Se. A clear idea can be obtained by creating a common definition by mixing these thereee.

Immovable Property means lands, benefits arising of the lands and the things attached to the earth or permanenotly fastened to anything attached to the earth. Other than the physical aspect, every benefit arising from and every interest in the property is also included in the definition. It excludes thereee things, namely, standing timber, growing crops and grass.

STANDING TIMBER, GROWING CROPS AND GRASS
Whether a tree is timber or not depends on the category of the tree and the common purpose of such category. All the statutory definitions have excluded standing timber, growing crops and grass from the purview of an immovable property. Here the intention is of great importance. If the transaction is the immediate, the objects will be movable. But if the contract regarding such objects extends to many a year or if the owner of the trees is interested in further vegetative growth, then they will be treated as immovable property. The transfer of trees standing on land does not amounot to the transfer of the land also.

For example, mangoes are treated as movable property for the intention is to pluck them seasonally and sell them. On the other hand, when a person has a right to fish from a particular lake, it is a benefit arising of an immovable property, namely, the lake. Hence, it will be an immovable property.

MARSHALL vs. GREEN — It was held that if only a right to cut and enjoy the tress as timber was sold, it is an interest in a movable property. If such a right is to extend over many years, it will be treated as an interest in immovable property.

The real test if whether a property is immovable or immovable is the intention behind the transfer and the transferability of the property. For example, generally a mango tree will be treated as an immovable property but it will be treated as movable property if it is to be cut and used to build a house.

Movable and Immovable property differences
MOVABLE PROPERTY    
It can be transferred from one place to another.

Registration is optional as per the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
The Sales and Central Sales taxes are applied,
   
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
It cannot be transferred without causing extensive damage to the property. The damage relates to the nature of the
property

Registration is compulsory under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 if the value of the property is more than Rs. 100.
The property needs to be registered at the Sub-Registrar’s office.

The appropriate stamp duty and the registration fee have to be paid.

WHAT IS INCLUDED IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY     WHAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

What is included
1) A right to collect rent from an immovable property;
2) A right to receive future rents and profits of land;
3) A tenancy right;
4) Coal mines;
5) A bore well that has been fastened in a permanent way to the earth;
6) Hereditary Offices; and
7) Right to use water of a perennial stream.    

What is not included
1) A right to worship;
2) A copyright;
3) The interest of a partner in a partnership firm;
4) A right to get maintenance;
5) A right to obtain the specific performance of an agreement to sell;
6) Government promissory notes; and
7) A machinery that is not permanently attached to the earth and can be shifted from one place to another.

Meaning of "things attached to earth"
Concept of "Doctrine of fixtures"
A fixture is something fixed. In Transfer of Property Act, a fixture is a chattel which is affixed to the soil or land. But a chattel by merely being affixed to the land will not become an immovable property. There are two things which has to be considered for arriving at the point whether a chattel is an immovable property. This can be called the doctrine of fixtures.
(1) Mode of annexation
If the chattel remains on the land by its own weight and is not affixed to the land there is a presumption that it is only a movable property. Here the criteria is the intention to make whether it a fixture or not. If the intention was to make it part of the land it is treated as a fixture.
If the chattel is fixed to the land by means of nails or such things the presumption is that it is a fixture and become an immovable property.
(2) The Purpose for Annexing
The tenure of beneficial enjoyment of the land is a necessary criterion to hold whether the chattel is an immovable property.
If the purpose of annexation is the permanent beneficial enjoyment of the land the presumption is that it is a fixture.

(1) Shanotabai vs St of Bom, AIR 1958 SC 532: (1959) SCR 265
[ A right to enter upon the land of another & carry a part of the produce is an instance of profits a pendre i.e. benefit arising out of land, & therefore a grant in immovable property.]
Facts n Issue:- Lease doc - 12n a 1/2 yrs executed by a Zamindar in the favour of his wife. 'right to cut & appropriate wood from the Zamindar's forest(estate for a consideration of Rs 26,000. A right was conferred upon her to cut & take bamboo, fuel wood & teak but there was prohibition for cutting teak plants under the height of one and a half feet - the moment the teak trees reaches that girth they cud be felled but within 12 years - when the MP abolition of proprietary rights (estate, mahals, alienated lands) Act, 1950 was passed, all proprietary rights in the land became vested in the State & she was stopped for cutting any more trees. She filed a petition in the court contending that as the right granted to her was a right in standing timber (movable property), she was entitled to compensation. - Issue was whether it is transfer of movable or immovable property. Trees regarded as immovable property because it is benefit that arises out of the land & also because they are attached to the earth. But standing timber is movable property

Observation & Decision - exclusion of TP Act is only for standing timber & not of timber trees - standing timber must be a tree that is in a state fit for use for building or industrial purposes, & looked upon as a timber even though it is still standing. If not, it is still a tree because unlike timber, it will continue to draw sustenance form the soil. But the amt of nourishment it takes, if felled at a reasonably early date, it is so negligible & to be ignored. - Present case duration of the grant is 12 yrs, it is evident that trees that will be fit for cutting 12 yrs hence will not be fit for felling new. therefore it is not a mere sale of the trees as wood. it is more. it is not just a wish to cut a tree but also to derive a profit from the soil itself, in the shape of the nourishment in the soil that goes into the tree & makes it grow till it is of a size & age fit for felling as timber & if already of that size, in order to enable it to continue to live till the petitioner choose to fell it. - grant was not only for standing timber but also for trees that were to fell gradually as they grow to attain required height ( & these trees r immovable property ) . Moreover in case of standing timber, it is left to petitioner's choice to fell them - that means they are not to be converted into timber at a reasonably early date & that the intention is that they should continue to live, in other words, they r to be regarded as trees & not as timber that is standing & is about to be cut & used for purposes for which timber is meant. It is clear because the right was spread for a period of 12 yrs & the intent was not to cut the trees at a reasonably early time period - therefore lease doc is not a transfer of trees as wood(movable) but a transfer of benefit arising out of immovable property - right to fell trees for a term of years, so that the transferee derives a benefit from further growth of trees.
(2) St of Orrisa vs Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd, AIR 1985 SC 1293: (1985) Supp SCC 280
[ The contract should be examined as a whole with reference to all its terms & all the rights conferred by it & not with ref to only a few terms or with just one of the rights flowing there from - 'bamboo contract' (right to cut & remove bamboos with several ancillary rights) is related to immovable property as a benefit to arise out of land & did not relate to a contract of movable property. ]
Facts n Issue - In this case a contract of the petitioner company with State of Orissa for the purpose of felling, cutting & removing bamboos from forest areas for the purpose of converting the bamboos in paper pulp, or for the purposes connected with the manufacture of paper, etc have been held to be profit a pendre or benefits arising from land, & thus an immovable property.
Court overruled State of MP vs Orienot paper mills

Other cases which court relied on:- Ananda Behera vs St of Orissa - right to fish -> right in immovable property

(3) Bamdev Panigrahi vs Monorama Raj, AIR 1974 AP 226
[ Cinema equipments like projector, diesel engine etc, installed on the tenanted land temporarily, and not attached to the earth, but also not permanently fastened to anything to the earth, are movable properties. ] touring talkie installed on land - not attached to earth but was on a temporary shed on the land - name 'touring talkies she was that aim & intent of installation was for temporary period

(4) Duncans Industries Lts vs St of UP, (2000) 1 SCC 633
Whether a machinery embedded in the earth can be treated as moveable or immovable property depends on the intention of the parties which embedded the machinery & also the intention of the parties who intend alienating that machinery]
Transfer of fertilizer plant - machinery transferred as movable property - escaped stamp duty - HC observed & SC confirmed that machinery relating to manufacture of fertilizer in a sale of fertilizer planot is immovable property

2. Attestation ( Sec 3 )
Importance of Attestation;
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, hereinafter referred to as TPA, lays down the law to regulate the transfer of property between living persons.
[1] The TPA regulates transfer of property by providing for certain kinds of transfers-sale, mortgage, lease, exchange, gift and also provides for attestation of the instruments, by which these transfers take place. To attest is to bear witness to a fact.
[2] By providing for attestation, the TPA seeks to ensure that witness is borne to the fact that the transfer instrument is signed without any element of “force, fraud or undue influence”.
[3] The TPA while making a provision for attestation, makes attestation mandatory only in case of certain kinds of transfers-gifts and mortgages, to the exclusion of all other kinds of transfers.
To attest is to bear witness to a fact.
[4] To attest an instrument is to bear witness to the fact of verity of that instrument .
[5] Thus, under the TPA, which provides for various kinds of transfers, to attest a transfer instrument , is to bear witness to the fact of variety of the transfer instrument , which is being executed by the transferor in favour of the transferee. Section 3 of the TPA, defines attestation in its verb form — “attested”.
Section 3, the part of which defines “attested”, reads as follow as —
“Attested”, in relation to an instrument , means and shall be always deemed to have meant, attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executants sign or affix his mark on the instrument , or has seen some other person sign the instrument in his presence and by direction of the executants, or has received from the executants personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of signature of such other persons, and each of whom, has signed the instrument in the presence of the executants, but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.

Section 3 in laying down the meaning of attestation, enumerates three conditions for a valid attestation under the TPA
-Firstly, there must be at least two attesting witnesses.
-Secondly, each of the attesting witnesses must see the transferor (or executants) sign the instrument or affix his mark or see some other person sign the instrument or affix his mark under the direction of the transferor, otherwise each of the witnesses must at least receive a personal acknowledgement, from the transferor, that the signature or the mark is his.
-Thirdly, the attesting witness must attest with an intention of bearing witness to the instrument being signed and with no other intention.

[6]  Not following the above three conditions would make the attestation invalid and an instrument invalidly attested, cannot be executed in a Court of Law.
[7] Since, attestation is done in order to bear witness to the fact of verity of the transfer instrument , which is being executed by the transferor in favour of the transferee, it naturally follow as that the transferor, the transferee, or any other person, who is party to the instrument , cannot be an attesting witness to the transfer instrument .

[8] In Harish Chandra v. Bansidhar Mohanoty, a mortgage instrument was executed by the appellant in favour of the second respondent, but it was the first respondent who had advanced the money and had also attested the mortgage instrument .

[9] On the first respondent filing a suit to enforce the mortgage, it was contended that the first respondent was a party to the instrument and hence, the attestation is invalid. The Supreme Court, while holding that attestation by a party to the instrument would make the attestation invalid, ruled that in the present case, the first respondent is not a party to the instrument but is a party to the transaction and being so, can attest the mortgage instrument .

[10 ] Thus, for a valid attestation, it is necessary that any person, other than a person who is party to the instrument , is the attesting witness.

Object :
The object of attestation in the TPA, was held out by the Supreme Court, again in,

Harish Chandra v. Bansidhar Mohanoty.
[11] In arriving at its decision that a party to a transaction, as opposed to a party to an instrument can be an attesting witness, the Supreme Court, stated the object of providing for attestation in the TPA is to — “protect the executants from being required to execute a document by the other party thereto by force, fraud, or undue influence”.
[12] Thus, the purpose, with which attestation, has been provided for in the TPA, is to ensure that the transfer of property takes place voluntarily i.e. without any element-whether fraud, fraud or undue element — vitiating the for consent of the transferor. As such, providing for attestation, the TPA seeks to ensure that witness is borne to the fact of verity of the transfer instrument in the sense of it being signed by the transferor voluntarily.

Scope :

The TPA, while it provides for transfers such as — sale, mortgage, lease, exchange, gift, makes attestation mandatory only for certain kinds of transfers by mortgage and gift. Section 59[13] of the TPA lays down that for every transfer by mortgage to be effected, where the principle amount is Rs. 100/- or upwards, and where the mortgage is not by way of deposit of title deeds, attestation is mandatory. In case of mortgages, where the principle amount is less than Rs. 100/- a mortgage can be effected either, by registration and attestation, or mere delivery of property. Hence, for mortgages where the principle amount is less than Rs. 100/-, attestation is not mandatory. Similarly, Section 123[14] of the TPA, lays down that, for transfer by gift involving immovable property, attestation is mandatory for the transfer of gift to be effected, a transfer by gift involving movable property can be effected either by registration and attestation or by mere delivery.
Thus, the TPA makes attestation a mandatory requirement, only in case of transfer by mortgage and gift; that too, mortgages involving a principal sum of Rs. 100/- or upwards and gifts involving immobile property, respectively. Under the TPA, where attestation is made mandatory for certain kinds of transfers by mortgage and gift, attestation is not mandatory at all for other kind of transfers, whatever principle sum they may involve or whatever property they may effect a transfer of.

Who may be a competent witness; - Anyone apart from the parties to the transfer of property

mode of attestation; -

attestation by a Pardanasheen woman

(5) Kumar Harish Chandra Singh Deo vs Banisidhar Mohanoty, AIR 1965 SC 1738: (1966) 1 SCR 153
No provision of law debars a money lender from attesting a deed which evidences the transaction where under the money was lent.
3rd person landed the money to the mortgagee but the mortgage deed was between the mortgagor & mortgagee. Held 3rd person cud attest the deed even though it was he who landed the money. SC observed 3rd person is not a party to the deed but a party to the transaction.

(6) M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib vs H. Venkata Sastri, AIR 1969 SC 1147: AIR 1969 SC 1147
This case highlights the importance of valid attestation in matters of transfer of property, it is essenotial that the witness put his signature animo attestandi i.e. with intention of attesting.

(7) Padarath Halwai v Ram Narain, AIR 1915, PC 21
[ToP by pardanasheen woman, when the attesting witnesses cud not see her but cud hear her voice, the attestation was held valid.]
Mortgagors were two pardanasheen women who did not appear before the attesting witnesses hence their face wasn't seen by the attesting witnesses. The issue was whether the document was duly attested by at least two witnesses within the meaning of S59A of the TPA,1882.

3. Notice (Sec 3)

NOTICE

The last paragraph of the section 3 states under what circumstances a person is said to have notice of a fact. He may himself have actual notice or he may have constructive notice may be imputed to him when information of the fact has been obtained by his agent in the course of business transacted by the agent for him.

(a) Express or actual notice. -- An express or actual notice of fact is a notice whereby a person acquires actual knowledge of the fact. It must be definite information given in the course of negotiations by a person interested in the property.
(b) Constructive Notice. -- It is a notice which treats a person who ought to have known a fact, as if he actually does know it. In other words, a person has constructive notice of all facts of which he would have acquired actual notice had he made those enquiries which he ought reasonably to have made. The cases of constructive notice into two classes :
(i) Cases in which the party charged has had actual notice that the property in dispute was in some way affected, and the Court has thereupon bound him with constructive notice of facts and documents, to a knowledge of which he would have been led by an inquiry after the circumstances affecting the property had come to his knowledge.
(ii) Cases in which the Court has been satisfied from the evidence before it that the party charged has designedly abstained from inquiry for the very purpose of avoiding notice – A purpose which, if proved, would clearly show that he had a suspicion of the truth, and a fraudulent determination not to learn it.

Notice – Effect of not making enquiry.-- Property was in possession of tenant. The vendee has not made any enquiry with the tenant in respect of prior agreement for sale executed in favour of the tenant. The vendee purchased the property without taking any enquiry though the property was in possession of the tenant. Held that the vendee would be deemed to have notice of the prior agreement in view of Section 3 of T.P.Act.

Constructive Notice.-- The explanation in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, which provides for fixing a party with constructive notice in respect of registered transactions, contains a proviso that in order to amount to constructive notice, (1) the instrument has been registered and its registration completed in the manner required by the Registration Act and the Rules made there under, (2) the instrument has been duly entered or filed in books kept under Section 51 of the Act, and (3) The particulars regarding the transaction to which the instrument relates have been correctly entered in the indexes kept under Section 55 of the Act.
Constructive notice has roughly been defined as knowledge which the court imputes to a person upon a presumption so strong that it cannot be allowed to be rebutted that the knowledge must have been obtained. This legal presumption arises under this section :
(1) In relation to a fact -
(a) when but for willful abstention from an inquiry which a person ought to have made he would have known the fact; or
(b) When but for gross negligence he would have known it;
(2) In relation to a document compulsorily registrable;
(3) In relation to actual possession;
(4) In relation to a notice to an agent.

The possession of a small part of a house will not put a purchaser on constructive notice of that person's rights as to whole house.

In Mohas. Mustaffa v. Haji Mohas. Hissa, it was held that the principle of constructive notice cannot be extended to a case where the person who claims on the basis of prior agreement is in possession of only a small fraction of the property. In such a case, it cannot be said that the person who purchases the property must make an enquiry about the previous contract from the plaintiff or any other tenant in occupation of a portion of the house.

Willful abstention from an enquiry or search.
The words “willful abstention” are said to be such abstention from inquiry or search as would show want of bona fide in respect of a particular transaction.
It should be noted that the abstention from inquiry must be with some purpose or design and due to a desire to avoid an inquiry would lead to ultimate knowledge. This sometimes happens when a person thinks that he has struck a good bargain and wants to purchase the property quickly lest other persons might come forward and compete with him.

Gross Negligence
The doctrine of constructive notice also applies when a person, but for his gross negligence, would have known the fact. Mere negligence is not penalized. It must be gross negligence.

In Nawal Kishore v. The Municipal Board, Agra, The court felt that there was a principle on which question of constructive notice cold rest, that principle being that all intending purchasers of the property in municipal areas where the property is subject to a municipal tax which has been made a charge on the property by statute have a constructive knowledge of the tax and of the possibility of some arrears being due with the result that it becomes their duty before acquiring the property to make enquiries as to the amount of tax which is due or which may be due and if they fail to make this enquiry such failure amounts to a willful abstention or gross negligence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and notice must be imputed to them.

It is not necessary to show that the person has been guilty to fraud or negligence amounting to fraud. Fraud is quite different from negligence. The former connotes active dishonesty, the latter simply implies indolence. Gross negligence is “a degree of negligence so gross that a court of justice may treat it as evidence of fraud, impute a fraudulent motive to it and visit it with the consequences of fraud, although, morally speaking, the party charged may be perfectly innocent.

Registration as Notice.
The doctrine of constructive notice applies also in case of documents which are required by law to be registered. Where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be, and has been, effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property, shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument from the date of registration.
It must be noted that registration amounts to notice only in those cases where the instrument is required law to be registered. That is to say where the registration of a transaction is of a transaction is optional, the fact of registration does not amount to notice.
Finally, it must be noted that the instrument must have been registered in the manner prescribed by the Indian Registration Act, 1908. If the instrument has been registered in the same registration sub-district as that in which the property is situate, it operates as notice from the date of registration. If, however, the property is situate in several sub-districts, or if the registration has been effected in another district, the registered deed will not operate as notice until memorandum of such registration has been received and filed by the Sub-Registrar of sub-district in which the property is situate.

Actual Possession as Notice.
Explanation II says that any person acquiring any immovable property shall be deemed to have notice of the title, if any, of any person who is in actual possession thereof.
In order to operate as constructive notice possession must be actual possession. Thus, if a tenant is not in the actual occupation of the land, his occupation is not constructive notice.
Where a certain party is not in possession, the presumption under the explanation to Sec. 3, does not arise, that the person purchasing the property title shall be deemed to have notice of the title, if any, of any person who is not in actual possession.

Notice to Agent.
Explanation III, of Section 3 which dealt with notice to an agent ran as follows :
“A person is said to have notice of fact. When the information of fact is given to, or obtained by, his agent under the circumstances mentioned in Section 229 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.”
The general principle of the agency law is that an agent stands in the place of the principal for the purpose of the business in hand, his acts and knowledge being considered as the acts and knowledge of the principal.

Scope of the Rule.-- The general rule that the knowledge of the agent is the knowledge of the principal has certain limitations. The notice should have been received by the agent : (i) as an agent, (ii) during the agency, (iii) in the course of the agency business, (iv) in a matter material to the agency business.

Exception :

Fraudulent concealment of fact by agent.-- The knowledge of an agent will not be imputed to his principal if the agent fraudulently conceals the facts. It is not sufficient to show that the agent concealed the fact. It must be shown that the party charging the principal with notice was party to the fraud or otherwise knew of the fraud.

In Arumilli Surayya v. Pinisetti Venkataramanamma, it was held that Sec. 100 of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply to auction sales because the transfer within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act does not include an auction sale. It was added that the position of a purchaser at an execution sale is the same as that of the judgment -debtor and his position is somewhat different from that of a purchaser at the private sale.

(8) Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Haji Abdul Gafur Haji Hussenbhai, AIR 1975 SC 1201; (1971) 1 SCC 757
The question of constructive notice depends upon facts & circumstances of each case. there is no presumption of constructive notice with registered to muncipal taxes. Prop of a person who became insolvent vested in the Official Receiver of the Court - Receiver received bill pertaining to taxes from muncipality - receiver sought courts permission to sell the property to pay the taxes, which was granted to him - lapse of 5 yrs - auction -purchaser purchased property w/o actual notice of the municipal charge - due inquiry from purchasers behalf on acc of the pending taxes - no info given to purchaser by receiver - issue cud the purchaser be held to have constructive notice of the fact that arrears might be due - SC overruled the decision in Naval Kishore vs Muncipal Board of Agra in which it was held that all the intending purchasers(in muncipal area where property is subject to muncipal tax) have a duty to enquire about the amt of tax due (past arrears) & if they fail to do so, constructive notice shall be imputed to them - court cited the decision in Roop Chand Jain's case where it was held that no intending purchaser is bound to presume that taxes upon the property were not paid in the ordinary course, in the absence of special intimation by the muncipality (e.g. press notification) - circumstances by which a deeming fiction is imputed to a party are based on willful absentation  or gross negligence - while former suggests conscious & deliberate absentation  latter implies high degree of neglect - present case muncipality was far more negligent than the plaintiff - question is not whether a person had means of obtaining knowledge, but whether as a reasonable man he ought to have made it i.e. in the given circumstances there was a duty to find out. In present case plaintiff could not have reasonably have thought that the muncipality had not cared to secure the payment of taxes due & thus bound to enquire about the matter - he did enquire about the rent that was collected by the receiver - hence reasonable assumption that payment of taxes from rental income would be paid by receiver to the muncipality

(9) Md Mustafa vs Haji Md. Isa, AIR 1987 Pat 5
Principle of constructive notice does not apply in cases where the person who claims on basis of prior agreement is in possession of a small portion of the property -
(Plaintiff)Tenant was occupying 1/7th of the property - occupied by many tenants - claimed prior agreement - asked for decree for specific performance - claimed defendant took full consideration amt for the prop also executed a registered sales deed - claimed defendant asked all tenants to pay - SC observed that 1/7th possession of land - 6 more tenants - plaintiff cannot be said to be in possession of the land

(10) H.N. Narayanaswamy Naidu vs Deveeramma, AIR 1981 Kanot 93
[Principle of notice & constructive notice is applicable when the plaintiff was in actual possession of the property & carried out major repairs at his costs.] - conditional sale - money to be returned after 6 years & within 6monoths thereafter - subsequently the vendors were in need of money, they further executed an agreement that they would release the agreement of re-conveyance - it is for that purpose that plaintiff calling upon them to execute the registered release deed as assured - mother-son(def) resold the reconveyance right to another party (def3) - issue in this case is whether def3 a bona fide purchaser for value w/o notice of the right to get the reconveyance for the def1 & def2 -

(11) Ram Niwas vs Bano, AIR 2000 SC 2921: (2000) 6 SCC 685
The principle of constructive notice is applicable whn the plaintiff was in actual possession of the property, the word notice is of wither import than the word knowledge - a person may not have actual knowledge of a fact but he may have notice of it.
tenant takes suit shop on rent - later agrees to buy it for 9200 pays 3200 as consideration amount and agrees to pay the rest on execution of the sale deed - later resp1 to 4 buy the shop for 20000 - tenant files suit of sp performance resp 1 to 5(vendor & purchasers) - purchasers deny the genuineness of the agreement to sell - S19 of Specific Relief Act provides categories of persons against whom the sp performance of a contract may be enforced - among them is included under S19(b) any transferee claiming under the vendor by a title arising subsequently to the contract of which sp performance is sought - however a transferee for value, who has paid his money in gud faith & w/o notice of the original contact, is excluded from the purview of the said clause
- to fall within the excluded clause a transferee must show that
(i) he has purchased for value the property (which is the subject matter of the suit)
(ii) he has paid the money to the vendor in good faith
(iii) he had no notice of the earlier contract for sale (sp performance of which is sought against him)
SC observed that both TC & HC dealt with the question of purchasers knowledge of the fact - but said the issue in question here is not knowledge but Notice(which is wither than the scope of knowledge) - Apex court held that purchasers will be deemed to have notice of earlier 'agreement to sell', should it be found to be true & valid


4. Meaning of Transfer of Property (Sec 5)

Section 5. “Transfer of property” defined.—
In the following sections “transfer of property” means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself, 1[or to himself] and one or more other living persons; and “to transfer property” is to perform such act.

1[In this section “living person” includes a company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, but nothing herein conotained shall affect any law for the time being in force relating to transfer of property to or by companies, associations or bodies of individuals.]

COMMENOTS
Right to Property

Right to obtain shares of a company is a “property” and the donee’s right to such shares cannot be thwarted only because such shares in the name of the donee was not entered into the register of the company;

Vasudev Ram Chandra Shelat v. P.J. Thakkar, (1974) 2 SCC 323.

Meaning of 'Transfer of Property' under the Act;
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY

Transfer of Property has been defined in S. 5 of the Transfer of Property Act meaning 'an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future to one or more other living persons and “to transfer property” is to perform such act'.
'Living person' has been defined to include a company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, but nothing herein contained shall effect any law for the time being in force relating to the transfer of property to or by companies, associations or bodies of individuals.

Property
The Legislature has not attempted to define the word 'property', but it is used n this Act in its withiest and most generic legal sense. Section 6 says that 'property of any kind may be transferred', etc. thus an actionable claim is property; and so is a right to a reconveyance of land.
It is used in this dual sense of the thing and the right of the thing in S. 54 which contrasts, 'tangible immovable property' with 'a reversion or other intangible thing'. Property includes rights such as trademarks, copyrights, patents and personal rights capable of transfer or transmission such as debt. A share in the company is a movable property freely alienable in absence of any express restrictions under the Articles of Association of the company. The shares are, therefore, transferable like any other movable property and the vendee of the shares cannot be denied the registration of the shares purchased by him on a ground other than stated in the Article.
The words 'in present or in future' in S. 5 qualify the word 'conveys' and not the word 'property'. A transfer of property not in existence operates as a contract to be performed in the future which is specifically enforceable as soon as the property comes into existence. Where the operative portion of the sale-deed recorded that all rights and privileges in the concerning the property either in present or accruing in future as vesting in the vendor were the subject matter of the sale and that the vendor retained no right of any kind, it was held that even the right of the vendor of reconveyance of the property was transferred by the sale-deed.

Interests in Property
As ownership consists of a bundle of rights, the various rights and interests may be vested in different persons. Absolute ownership is an aggregate of component rights such as the right of possession, the right of enjoying the usufruct of the land, and as on. These subordinate rights, the aggregate of which make up absolute ownership, are called in this Act interests in Property. A transfer of property is either a transfer of absolute ownership or a transfer of one or more of these subordinate rights.

Transfer
The word 'transfer' is defined with reference to the word 'convey'. This word in English Law is its narrower and more usual sense refer to the transfer of an estate in land; but it is sometimes used in a much wither sense to include any form of an assurance inter vivous. Transfer must have an interest in the property. He cannot sever himself from it and yet convey it. A lease comes within the meaning of the word 'transfer'.

The definition of transfer of property in this section does not exclude property situated outside India or the territories to which the Act applies. It matters not that the property is situated outside India, or in the territories where the Act does not apply; for it the transfer is effected where the Act is in force, the rights of the parties are to be determined by the court under the Act leaving it to the party to prove that by the lex rei sitae, ie by the law of the land where the property is situated, the transaction in invalid or defective.

A transfer is not necessarily contractual, and included a deed of appointment. The section does not require that the 'living person' who conveys should necessarily be the same person as he who owns, or owned, the property conveyed by some living person; under the section, there may be a transfer by a person exercising powers over the property of another.

Partition of joint Hindu family or Deed of partition of joint family property
A partition is not actually a transfer of property.

The Privy Council in Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj, held that, partition does not give a coparcener a title or create a title in him; it only enables him to obtain what is his own in a definite and specific form for purpose of disposition independent of the wishes of his former co-sharers.” A partition effects a change in the mode of enjoyment of property but is not an act of conveying property from one living person to another. Partition is not a transfer. It is only renouncement of existing rights in common properties in consideration is only renouncement of existing rights in common properties in consideration of getting exclusive right and possession over the specific plots. Partition is only a process of mutual renunciation by which common unspecified rights in larger extents are converted into exclusive right over specific plots.

In V. N. Sarin v. Ajit Kr. Poplai court observed that 'the true effect of partition is that each coparcener gets a specific property in lieu of his undivided right in respect of the totality of the property of the family'. The Supreme Court in that case was considering the provisions of Rent Control Act and did not express any opinion on the correctness of certain decisions holding that a partition is a transfer within the meaning of S. 53. The correct view, it is submitted, is that a partition is not a transfer and therefore, strictly not governed by the Act, but that many of the provisions of the Act may govern partition as embodying rules of justice, equity and good conscience.
Partition of property does not amount to 'transfer' as contemplated by S.5. Doctrine of part performance therefore does apply to partition. Partition is really a process, in and by which a joint enjoyment is transformed into a enjoyment severally. Each one of the co-sharers had an antecedent title and, therefore, no conveyance is involved in the process, as the conferment of a new title is not necessary. The doctrine of part performance does not apply to an unregistered deed of partition.
A partition is possible between two co-owners who may not have absolute or equal rights, but are limited owners. A document executed in settlement of disputes between two persons who are entitled to the same properties and who agree to divide the properties amongst themselves is a partition, and not a settlement.
Where a joint family property is subject to mortgage, there is no transfer of ownership and the coparceners, being its lawful owners, are competent of allot the mortgaged property in an oral partition to any of the coparceners. The coparceners to whom the mortgaged property is allotted, becomes its absolute owner and is entitled to redeem the mortgage. Consequently, where the right to redeem is transferred by that coparcener, the transferee is also entitled to redeem the mortgage.
Property, subject to mortgage can be allotted in an oral partition to a coparcener, particularly when such oral partition is not going to interfere with the scheme of the mortgage.

Living Person –Will
These words exclude transfers by will, for a will operates from the death of the testator. Transfer of share or interest in a co-operative society to the nominee of its member operating on his death would also be excluded like transfer by will. When the beneficiary is not a living person, the expression used is the creation of an interest in an unborn person.
The words 'living person' include a juristic person such as a corporation. A court is not a juristic person.

In present or in future
A transfer of property may take place not only in present, but also in the future, but the property must be existence. The words 'in present or in future' qualify the word 'conveys', and not the word 'property'. A transfer of property that is not in existence operates as a contract to be performed in the future which may be specifically enforced as soon as the property comes inoto existence.

Transfer inter vivos; - Transfer between living persons ( both juristic & natural people )

Living person distinguished from Juristic person;
The term 'juristic person' includes a firm, corporation, union, association, or other organization capable of suing and being sued in a court of law."
A juristic person is a bearer of rights and duties that is not a natural person (that is, not a human being) but which is given legal personality by the law is a juristic person - for example, a company.
Juristic persons are entities other than human beings on which the law bestows legal subjectivity. This does not mean that they assume the guise of natural persons, but that the law for the sake of economic or social expediency recognizes a thing or community or group of persons as having legal personality and therefore the capacity to be the bearer of rights and duties and the ability to participate in the life of the law in its own name. They are called juristic persons because it is the law that accords them the status, in certain respects at least, of persons: they are artificial persons created by the law.
God is a juristic person - property transferred to God governed by relevant religious or charitable endowment Acts

Natural Person
    A natural person is a human being.
    He has characteristics of the power of Thought speech and choice.
    A natural person is a real and living person.
    Slaves were also natural persons.
    The layman does not recognize idiot, company, corporation, idol etc. as persons.
    The only natural persons are human beings.
    He is also a legal person.
    Natural persons perform their functions and also perform the function of legal persons.
    Man is the only natural person.
    There is no such division in natural person.
    Natural person can live for a limited period. i.e. he cannot live more than 100 years.

Legal Person
    Legal person is being, real or imaginary.
    A legal person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights or duties.
    Legal persons are also termed “fictitious”, “juristic”, “artificial” or “moral”.
    In older law, “slaves” were not recognized as persons.
    In law, idiots, dead men, unborn persons, corporations, companies, idols, etc. are treated as legal Persons.
    There are several categories of legal persons recognized by law.
    “Although all legal personality involves personification, the converse is not true”.
    The legal persons perform their functions thereough natural persons only.
    There are different varieties of legal persons, viz. Corporations, Companies, Universities, President, Societies, Municipalities,      
Gram panchayats, etc.
    There are two classes of corporation’s corporation sole and corporation aggregate.
    Legal person can live more than 100 years. Example: (a) the post of “American President” is a corporation, which was created some three  hundred years ago, and still it is continuing. (b) “East India Company” was established in sixteenth century in London, and now still is in existence.

Status of partition of JF property; - Partition is not a transfer of property - because nothing new is obtained by co-sharer on partition - his specific share vested in him earlier is simply separated

(12) V.N. Sarin vs Ajit Kumar Poplai, AIR 1966, SC 432: (1966) 1 SCR 349
On Partition a coparcener gives eviction notice to tenant who was inducted before partition - tenants contests on the same on the basis that the landlord acquired the premises thorough transfer - hence it comes u/s 14(6) of Delhi Rent Control Act which doesn't entitle landlord to demand possession till 5yrs - SC held that a partition is not transfer of property but with only signify the surrender of a portion of a joint right in exchange for a similar right from the other co-sharer or co-sharers hence S 14(6) DRCA doesn't apply here

(13) Kenneth Solomon vs Dan Singh Bawa, AIR 1986 Del 1
[Bequeathing of tenancy rights by a tenant under his Will to his heirs amounts to 'parting with possession' though such parting of possession does not amt to transfer within the meaning of Sec 5 TP Act] - dispute related to tenancy rights of the tenant which he had bequeathed under his Will in favour of his heirs  - on the death the beneficiaries under the Will took possession of the tenanted premises as the contract of the lease was still subsisting. The landlord filed a suit for eviction on the ground that this transfer of the premises amounted to violation of the provisions of the Delhi RCA, as the tenant has parted with the possession of the premises in dispute without the permission of the landlord - Issue was whether a person parts with possession of the property(u/ DRCA) through a devise of Will & not whether such parting amts to transfer within meaning of S5 TPA –

Observation & Decision - The lessee by her act of bequeathing the tenancy rights by means of the Will in favor of the appellant had parted with possession. Thus a violation of the lease agreement has taken place - the landlord was therefore entitled to claim eviction

(14) Mohar Singh vs Devi Charan, AIR 1988 SC 1365: (1988) 3 SCC 63
Though partition of a JF Property does not amt to a transfer within meaning of S5 TPA, S109 TPA is applicable to partition on the principle of justice, equity & good conscience - Partition of JFP(part of which was tenanted) between two co-owners - one co-owner filed a suit for eviction on grounds of bona fide need - prescribed authority ordered release of premises & made an order granting possession - Appeal to HC - it was contended that landlord cannot seek to split the integrity & unity of the tenancy coz it is impermissible in law- HC accepted the argument - Appeal to SC - held that S109 provides statutory excepting to the above rule and enables an assignee of a part of the reversion to exercise all rights of the landlord in respect of the opinion -

(15) N. Ramaiah vs Nagaraj S, AIR 2001 Kanot. 395 (A will does not amt to transfer within meaning of S5 TPA )
 Issues
- whether bequest of a prop under a Will is a transfer of property
- whether direction to a party to maintain status quo in regard to a property, prohibits him from making a testamentary disposition(via Will)  & whether a Will made during the operation of an order of status quo regarding a property is void & non estate in so far as the bequest relating to such property. - claim over property by A named in will & B succeeding as legal heir - A files suit of temporary injunction against B to stop from alienation - Judge passes status quo - B dies bequeathing the property to C in her Will - TC Judge holds that Will is against the status quo order - HC reversed TC Judge contention - held will does not amt to transfer as per TPA and is governed by testamentary succession laws

5. What kind of Property can be transferred ( Sec 6(a) and 43 )

Transfer of "Spes Successions";
Section 6(a). What may be transferred.—
Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force,—
(a) The chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate, the chance of a relation obtaining a legacy on the death of a kinsman, or any other mere possibility of a like nature, cannot be transferred;

Illustration
A has a wife B and a daughter C. C in consideration of Rs. 1,000 paid to her by A, executes a release of her right to share in the inheritance to A's property. A dies and C claims her one-third share in the inheritance. B resists the claim and sets up the release signed by C. The release is no defense, for it is a transfer of a spes successions, and C is entitled to her one-third share but is bound to bring into account the Rs. 1,000 received from her father.

Chance of an heir apparent.
A mere possibility of an heir succeeding to an estate is excluded from the category of transferable property. The prohibition enacted in this clause is based on public policy, namely, that if these transfers were allowed speculators would purchase the chance of succession from possible heirs and there would be increase in speculative litigations.

Sec. 6(a), however, prohibits the transfer of a bare chance of a person to get a property. After the death of the husband, for example, if two widows inherit their husband's properties together, the transfer of bare chance of the surviving widow taking the entire estate as the next heir of her husband on the death of the co-widow of her present interest in the properties inherited by her together with the incidental right of survivorship. Such widows could validly partition the properties and allot separate partitions to each and, incidental to such an allotment, could agree to relinquish her right of survivorship in the portion allotted to the other.

Doctrine of "Feeding the grant by estoppels";
Section 43. Transfer by unauthorized person who subsequently acquires interest in property transferred.—
Where a person 1[fraudulently or] erroneously represents that he is authorized to transfer certain immoveable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists.

Nothing in this section shall impair the right of transferees in good faith for consideration without notice of the existence of the said option.

Illustration
A, a Hindu who has separated from his father B, sells to C their fields, X, Y and Z, representing that A is authorized to transfer the same. Of these fields Z does not belong to A, it having been retained by B on the partition; but on B’s dying A as heir obtains Z. C, not having rescinded the contract of sale, may require A to deliver Z to him.

Status of bona fide transferee for consideration and without notice

(16) Jumma Masjid, Mercara vs Kodimaniandra Deviah, AIR 1962 SC 847: 1962 Supp (1) SCR 554
Sec 6(a) & S43 relates to two different subjects & that there is no neccessary conflict between them.
Issue whether ToP for consideration by person representing present interest(whereas actually it was only specs successions) is within the protection of S43? Widow contended that till she was alive, no one else had right to possess the property - meanwhile she died  - at this Jumma Masjid intervened & contended that the properties vested in them as the widow had made a gift of that property to the appellants (Juma Masjid) - Appellants contended that respondents vendor had only a specs successions during the life time of the widow & therefore the transform is void u/s 6(a) - SC held that even in case of spes successions, the transformer is precluded from questioning the validity of the transfer if he later on acquires an interest in the property -

(17) Kartar Singh vs Harbans Kaur (1994) 4 SCC 730
The transferee cannot acquire a valid title to the property when he is deemed to have knowledge(actual or constructive) of the defect in title of the transferor, Sec 6(a) as well as S43 will not apply in such a case. Mother alienates minors property - minor on attaining majority filed a suit to the effect that this sale was not binding on him & was void - TC held sale to be void - before Son could take possession of the property he died, mother class I heir succeeded to the property - transferee claimed benefit u/s 43 TPA - HC refused to grant remedy - Appeal to SC - observed for S43 two conditions (i) fraudulent or erroneous representation (ii) Transferor acquired an interest in the property
Transfer held to be void - Transferee was aware of the title of the mother on the property


6. Conditional Transfer ( Secs 10 and 11)

Section 10. Condition restraining alienation.—
Where property is transferred subject to a condition or limitation absolutely restraining the transferee or any person claiming under him from parting with or disposing of his interest in the property, the condition or limitation is void, except in the case of a lease where the condition is for the benefit of the lesser or those claiming under him: provided that property may be transferred to or for the benefit of a women (not being a Hindu, Muhammadan or Buddhist), so that she shall not have power during her marriage to transfer or charge the same or her beneficial interest therein.

Section 11. Restriction repugnant to interest created.—
Where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created absolutely in favour of any person, but the terms of the transfer direct that such interest shall be applied or enjoyed by him in a particular manner, he shall be entitled to receive and dispose of such interest as if there were no such direction.

1[Where any such direction has been made in respect of one piece of immoveable property for the purpose of securing the beneficial enjoyment of another piece of such property, nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any right which the transferor may have to enforce such direction or any remedy which he may have in respect of a breach thereof.]

Section 40. Burden of obligation imposing restriction on use of land.—

Where, for the more beneficial enjoyment of his own immoveable property, a third person has, independently of any interest in the immoveable property of another or of any easement thereon, a right to restrain the enjoyment 1[in a particular manner of the latter property], or
Or of obligation annexed to ownership but not amounting to interest or easement.—Where a third person is entitled to the benefit of an obligation arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of immoveable property, but not amounting to an interest therein or easement thereon,
such right or obligation may be enforced against a transferee with notice thereof or a gratuitous transferee of the property affected thereby, but not against a transferee for consideration and without notice of the right or obligation, not against such property in his hands.

Illustration
A contracts to sell Sultanpur to B. While the contract is still in force he sells Sultanpur to C, who has notice of the contract. B may enforce the contract against C to the same extent as against A.

Transfer subject to a condition or limitation;

Absolute and partial restraints on transfer;

Exception in case of lease and married women;

Restrictions repugnant to interests created;

General principles;

Restrictions for beneficial enjoyment of one's own land;

Positive and negative covenants

(18) Rosher v Rosher (1884) 26 Ch D 801
The test to determine whether a restraint is absolute or only partial, depends upon the effect & not on the form of words laying down the condition - selling a property at 1/5th of its value (irrespective of whatever be the market value) is equivalent to a restraint upon at all

(19) Muhammad Raza vs Abbas Bandi Bibi, (1932) I.A. 236
transfer made with the restriction that property to be sold only within the family & not outside - held whether such a condition was inconsistent with an otherwise absolute estate that it must be regarded as repugnant? - court held terms of restriction to alienation was partial & that such partial restriction was neither repugnant to law nor to justice, equity & good conscience - court observed family arrangements are specially favored in the courts of equity - held that transferee had no power to alienate to the appellants(strangers) & upon her death, the respondents(legal heirs) would be entitled to the property

(21) Zorastrian Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd vs District Registrar, Co-op Societies(Urban) (2005) 5 SCC 632
A condition imposed in the bye laws that the property cannot be sold to a non-Parsi is valid. When a person accepts membership of a co-cooperative housing society by submitting to its byelaws & secures an allotment of a plot of land/building & places on himself a qualified restriction in his right to transfer the property by stipulating that the same would be transferred back to the society or with the prior consent of the society to a person qualified to be a member of the society, it cannot be held to an 'absolute restraint' on alienation offending S10 TPA.

(23) Tulk vs Moxhay (1848) 2 Ch. 774
Square - land belonging to X in btw alienated to E with condition of no construction - after subsequent alienations - land went to Y who wanted to construct a building. - X files suit against Y - Court rules in favor of X
- Covenants between transferor & original transferee are always enforceable
- Negative covenants are binding upon the subsequent transferee with notice
Rule in this case forms an exception to S11 TPA & in incorporated in 1st para of S40 TPA.

7. Transfer for the benefit of unborn persons ( Secs 13-18)

Section 13. Transfer for benefit of unborn person.—

Where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created for the benefit of a person not in existence at the date of the transfer, subject to a prior interest created by the same transfer, the interest created for the benefit of such person shall not take effect, unless it extends to the whole of the remaining interest of the transferor in the property.

Illustration

A transfers property of which he is the owner to B in trust for A and his inotended wife successively for their lives, and, after the death of the survivor, for the eldest son of the inotended marriage for life, and after his death for A’s second son. The interest so created for the benefit of the eldest son does not take effect, because it does not extend to the whole of A’s remaining interest in the property.

Section 14. Rule against perpetuity.—

No transfer of property can operate to create an interest which is to take effect after the life-time of one or more persons living at the date of such transfer, and the minority of some person who shall be in existence at the expiration of that period, and to whom, if he attains full age, the interest created is to belong.

COMMENTS
A covenant for pre-emption does not offend the rule against perpetuities and cannot be considered void in law; Ram Baran v. Ram Mohit, AIR 1967 SC 747.

Section 15. Transfer to class some of whom come under sections 13 and 14.—
If, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created for the benefit of a class of persons with regard to some of whom such interest fails by reason of any of the rules conotained in sections 13 and 14, such interest fails 1[in regard to those persons only and not in regard to the whole class].

COMMENTS
It has been held by the Supreme Court that although no interest could be created in favour of an unborn person but if gift was made to a class of series of person some of whom were in existence and some were not, it was valid with regard to the former and invalid as to the latter;

Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer, (1953) SCR 232.

Section 16. Transfer to take effect on failure of prior interest.
1[16. Transfer to take effect on failure of prior interest.—Where, by reason of any of the rules contained in sections 13 and 14, an interest created for the benefit of a person or of a class of persons fails in regard to such person or the whole of such class, any interest created in the same transaction and intended to take effect after or upon failure of such prior interest also fails.

Section 17. Direction for accumulation.—
(1) Where the terms of a transfer of property direct that the income arising from the property shall be accumulated either wholly or in part during a period longer than—
(a) the life of the transferor, or
(b) a period of eighteen years from the date of transfer,
such direction shall, save as hereinafter provided, be void to the extent to which the period during which the accumulation is directed exceeds the longer of the aforesaid periods, and at the end of such last-mentioned period the property and the income thereof shall be disposed of as if the period during which the accumulation has been directed to be made had elapsed.

(2) This section shall not affect any direction for accumulation for the purpose of—
(i) the payment of the debts of the transferor or any other person taking any interest under the transferor; or
(ii) the provision of portions for children or remoter issue of the transferor or of any other person taking any interest under the transfer; or
(iii) the preservation or maintenance of the property transferred,
and such direction may be made accordingly.

Section 18. Transfer in perpetuity for benefit of public.—
The restrictions in sections 14, 16 and 17 shall not apply in the case of a transfer of property for the benefit of the public in the advancement of religion, knowledge, commerce, health, safety or any other object beneficial to mankind.

Creation of prior interests and absolute interests in favour of unborn persons;
Rule against perpetuity; A -> Property -> B

Rule of possible and actual events;
Transfer to a class;
Transfer when prior interest fails; S16
Directions for accumulation of income;
Exceptions

(24) Ram Newaz vs Nankoo, AIR 1926 All 283
While examining the transfer of prop u/s 14 TPA courts look at the possible events acc to the terms of the deed & not the actual events on the date of the transfer - in deciding the question of remoteness, regard must be had to the possible & not to the actual events - ram charan sold his agri land minus 2 Bighas but the sale deed has a condition that a part of the property(2 bigha) was to remain with him, his son and his lineal descendent who has no power to alienate his property - if none of the lineal descendent were to be alive then the 2 bighas to go to the vendees or his heirs - after the death of ram charan issueless son a dispute arose between the vendees & the reversionary of ram charan - deed of ram charan created a life estate ‌favor of himself & his son & also  their unborn descendents - this was in violation of S13 as only absolute interest in the property can be transferred for the benefit of an unborn person(only one level of unborn person) - PC applied the test that in deciding the question of remote registered must has to the actually happens - court examined terms of the deed that in according to the condition that the land must hv remained in hands of Ram Charan for 100s of years - such condition rendered void by law and the reserved land decreed to reversionary of Ram Newaz

(25) Ram Baran vs Ram Mohit, AIR 1967 SC 744: (1967) 1 SCR 293
Rule against perpetuity applies only to transfer of property & not to agreement/contracts
2 bros - jointly owned - made a covenant that if any one of them wanted to dispose the prop the 1st right to buy the prop shall be of the other bro (pre emption right created in favor of both) - one bro sold his share to 3rd person on bros refusal to buy the same - other brother sold his share w/o offering it to his brother - transferee went wanted to sell it further - bro moved court against transferee - pre emption clause - transferee contended that pre-emption clause hit by rule against perpetuity - SC agreed w/ TC & HC - ruled that pre-emption clause not hit by rule against perpetuity
(26) R Kempraj vs Burton Son & Co, AIR 1970 SC 1872: (1969) 2 SCC 594
The rule against perpetuity does not apply to a leasee - lease 10yrs provided for an option to leasee to renew the same for further 10yrs as desired on the same terms - lease before expiry of 10yrs wanted to renew lease - lesser did not comply - leasee filed suit for performance of agreement in lease for renewal - Issue was whether clause for renewal of lease can be regarded as creating an interest in property & thus hit by rule against perpetuity and hence is void? - Court observed that rule against perpetuity is founded on the principle that the liberty of alienation shall not be exercised to its own destruction - A perpetuity(creation of remote interest in future) is a limitation which places the property for ever out of reach of the exercise of power of alienation - owing to sec 105 TPA a lease is a transfer of right to enjoy property for a certain time or in perpetuity - even then interest remains in the lesser, the reversionary  - thus the lease is present case is not hit by rule of perpetuity - clause relating to renewal of lease does not create right in property therefore does fall within the ambit of S14 TPA

8. Vested and Contingent Interests ( Secs 19 and 21 )

Section 19. Vested interest.—

Where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created in favour of a person without specifying the time when it is to take effect, or in terms specifying that it is to take effect forthwith or on the happening of an event which must happen, such interest is vested, unless a contrary intention appears from the terms of the transfer.

A vested interest is not defeated by the death of the transferee before he obtains possession.

Explanation.—

An intention that an interest shall not be vested is not to be inferred merely from a provision whereby the enjoyment thereof is postponed, or whereby a prior interest in the same property is given or reserved to some other person, or whereby income arising from the property is directed to be accumulated until the time of enjoyment arrives, or from a provision that if a particular event shall happen the interest shall pass to another person.

Section 21. Contingent interest.—

Where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created in favour of a person to take effect only on the happening of a specified uncertain event, or if a specified uncertain event shall not happen, such person thereby acquires a contingent interest in the property. Such interest becomes a vested interest, in the former case, on the happening of the event, in the latter, when the happening of the event becomes impossible.
Exception.—Where, under a transfer of property, a person becomes entitled to an interest therein upon attaining a particular age, and the transferor also gives to him absolutely the income to arise from such interest before he reaches that age, or directs the income or so much thereof as may be necessary to be applied for his benefit, such interest is not contingent.

Definition of and distinction between vested and contingent interests

(27) Rajesh Kanota Roy vs Shanoti Debi, AIR 1957 SC 255: 1957 SCR 77
principle to decide whether interest taken by beneficiaries under trust is whether vested or contingent - owner makes elder son trustee for entire property - made a provision for the property to be divided in favour of two sons - but the interest which either of them to get was made subject to happened of 2 events - (i) discharge of all debts of the settler (ii) at the death of the settler the trust coming to an end
Issue –

whether interest created by the trust deed was vested or contingent
Death of settler was not an uncertain event
Discharge of death was an uncertain event
Court observed that it is now well settled that such a devise(payment of debts) confers an immediate vested interest - the words of apparent, postponement, being considered only as creating a charge - the question is really one of intention to be gathered by a comprehensive view of all terms of the document
Court delineated the scheme of the trust deed as
(i) Specified lots were earmarked for each of his two sons
(ii) Present income out of those lots were to be applied for the discharge of debts
(iii) Any surplus which remained were to go to the very person to whom the lot was to belong
(iv) in the event of any of the two sons dying before the termination of the trust his interest was to devolve on his heirs
SC said these arrangements taken together indicate that what was postponed was not the vesting of property in the lot themselves but that the enjoyment of the income thereof - the enjoyment of income was burdened with certain monthly payments (to sons) & with the obligation to discharge debts there from notionally prorate - All of which taken together constitute the application of income for the benefit of the sons.

Decision is a vested interest thus attachable under a courts decree

9. Transfer during pendency of litigation ( Sec 52)

52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.—
- During the 1[pendency]
-  in any Court having authority 2[ 3[within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir] or established beyond such limits] by 4[the Central Government] 5[* * *]
- of 6[any] suit or proceedings which is not collusive and
- in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question,
- the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, - except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.
7[Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force.]

COMMENTS
(i) This section comes into existence from the point of the institution of the suit and continues to survive till the satisfaction of the decree. The petitioners were as much bound by the decree and judgment dated 16th August, 1973 and their transferor; Abdul Aziz v. District Judge, AIR 1994 All 167.
(ii) The effect of doctrine of his pendent as embodied in section 52 of Transfer of Property Act is not to annul all voluntary transfers effected by the parties to a suit but only to render it subservient to the rights of the parties thereto under the decree or order which may be made in that suit. Its effect is only to make the decree passed in the suit binding on the transferee if he happens to be third party person even if he is not a party to it. The transfer will remain valid subject, however to the result of the suit;

K.A. Khader v. Rajamma John Madathil, AIR 1994 Ker 122.

Concept of "Lis Pendens";
Lis - An action or a suit, Pendens - Pending

Meaning of proceedings;

Collusive suits;

Commencements and conclusion of suits;

Specific rights in specific immovable property -

Voluntary and Involuntary alienations - Even Involuntary alienations are subject to lis pendens

(28) Jayaram Mudaliar vs Ayyaswamy, AIR 1973 SC 569: (1972) 2 SCC 200
Private sale of a family property by a Karta, pending a suit for partition instituted by a member is hit by S52 & does not bind the family. The purpose of S52 TPA is not to defeat any just & equitable claim, but only to subject them to the authority of the court which is dealing with the property to which claims are put forward. Pre-existing liabilities of the Karta alone have no priority over the rights of other members of the Joint Family

(29) Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd vs Maharaja Sir Brijnath Singhji Deo, AIR 1975 SC 1810: (1975) 2 SCC 530
A lease of immovable property is affected by the doctrine of lis pendens as it created new rights during the pendency of the litigation.

10. Mortgage (Ss 58-60, 100)

Section 58. “Mortgage”, “mortgagor”, “mortgagee”, “mortgage-money” and “mortgage-deed” defined.—

(a) A mortgage is the transfer of an interest in specific immoveable property for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement which may give rise to a pecuniary liability.

The transferor is called a mortgagor, the transferee a mortgagee; the principal money and interest of which payment is secured for the time being are called the mortgage-money, and the instrument (if any) by which the transfer is effected is called a mortgage-deed.

(b) Simple mortgage.—Where, without delivering possession of the mortgaged property, the mortgagor binds himself personally to pay the mortgage-money, and agrees, expressly or impliedly, that, in the event of his failing to pay according to his contract, the mortgagee shall have a right to cause the mortgaged property to be sold and the proceeds of sale to be applied, so far as may be necessary, in payment of the mortgage-money, the transaction is called a simple mortgage and the mortgagee a simple mortgagee.

(c) Mortgage by conditional sale.—Where, the mortgagor ostensibly sells the mortgaged property—
on condition that on default of payment of the mortgage-money on a certain date the sale shall become absolute, or
on condition that on such payment being made the sale shall become void, or
on condition that on such payment being made the buyer shall transfer the property to the seller,
the transaction is called mortgage by conditional sale and the mortgagee a mortgagee by conditional sale:

1[Provided that no such transaction shall be deemed to be a mortgage, unless the condition is embodied in the document which effects or purports to effect the sale.]

d) Usufructuary  mortgage.—Where the mortgagor delivers possession 1[or expressly or by implication binds himself to deliver possession] of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee, and authorizes him to retain such possession until payment of the mortgage-money, and to receive the rents and profits accruing from the property 2[or any part of such rents and profits and to appropriate the same] in lieu of interest, or in payment of the mortgage-money, or partly in lieu of interest 3[or] partly in payment of the mortgage-money, the transaction is called an usufructuary  mortgage and the mortgagee an usufructuary  mortgagee.

(e) English mortgage.—Where the mortgagor binds himself to repay the mortgage-money on a certain date, and transfers the mortgaged property absolutely to the mortgagee, but subject to a proviso that he will re-transfer it to the mortgagor upon payment of the mortgage-money as agreed, the transaction is called an English mortgage.

4[(f) Mortgage by deposit of title-deeds.—Where a person in any of the following towns, namely, the towns of Calcutta, Madras, 5[and Bombay], 6[* * *] and in any other town7 which the 8[State Government concerned] may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, delivers to a creditor or his agent documents of title to immoveable property, with intent to create a security thereon, the transaction is called a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds.

(g) Anomalous mortgage.—A mortgage which is not a simple mortgage, a mortgage by conditional sale, an usufructuary  mortgage, an English mortgage or a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds within the meaning of this section is called an anomalous mortgage.]

COMMENTS
Usufructuary  mortgage

(i) The mortgagor had borrowed Rs. 1000 from the mortgagee and the possession of the building was handed over to the mortgagor. The mortgage money was to be repaid within a period of six months and in case of default the mortgagee had the right to bring the property to sale and realize the amount. The document therefore which was described as usufructuary  mortgage was held to be anomalous mortgage and not usufructuary  mortgage as it had character of a simple mortgage too as mortgagee was given the right to sell the property to realize the mortgaged amount; Hathika v. Puthiyapurayil Padmanathan, AIR 1994 Ker 141.
(ii) Where a mortgagee is continuing in possession of suit land as mortgagee for a continuous period of not less than fifty years, mere increase in the mortgage money, induction of a co-mortgagee, non-defining of their shares, would not alter the situation;

Narayana Pillai Raghavan Pillai v. Narayani Amma Ponnamma, AIR 1992 SC 146.

Section 59:    Mortgage when to be by assurance
where the principal money secured is one hundred rupees or upwards, a mortgage 2 [other than a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds] can be affected only by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses.
Where the principal money secured is less than one hundred rupees, a mortgage may be effected either by 3 [a registered instrument] signed and attested as aforesaid, or (except in the case of a simple mortgage) by delivery of the property.
Section 59A: References to mortgagors and mortgagees to include persons deriving title from them
Unless otherwise expressly provided, references in this Chapter to mortgagors and mortgagees shall be deemed to include references to persons deriving title from them respectively.

Section 60. Right of mortgagor to redeem.—
At any time after the principal money has become 1[due], the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the mortgage-money, to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver 2[to the mortgagor the mortgage-deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged property which are in the possession or power of the mortgagee], (b) where the mortgagee is in possession of the mortgaged property, to deliver possession thereof to the mortgagor, and (c) at the cost of the mortgagor either to re-transfer the mortgaged property to him or to such third person as he may direct, or to execute and (where the mortgage has been effected by a registered instrument ) to have registered an acknowledgement in writing that any right in derogation of his interest transferred to the mortgagee has been extinguished:

Provided that the right conferred by this section has not been extinguished by act of the parties or by 3[decree] of a Court.

The right conferred by this section is called a right to redeem and a suit to enforce it is called a suit for redemption.

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to render invalid any provision to the effect that, if the time fixed for payment of the principal money has been allowed to pass or no such time has been fixed, the mortgagee shall be entitled to reasonable notice before payment or tender of such money.

COMMENTS
Extinguishment of mortgage right

When a mortgagee acquires a portion of the equity of redemption, the mortgage is not extinguished completely. There can be only a pro tanoto extinguishment of the mortgage right to the extent of the mortgagee acquiring the mortgagor’s interest and so far as the other sharer of the equity of redemption is concerned, the mortgage will subsist;

Madhavan Nair v. Ramankutty Menon, AIR 1994 Ker 75.

Section 100. Charges.—
Where immoveable property of one person is by act of parties or operation of law made security for the payment of money to another, and the transaction does not amount to a mortgage, the latter person is said to have a charge on the property; and all the provisions hereinbefore contained 1[which apply to a simple mortgage shall, so far as may be, apply to such charge].

Nothing in this section applies to the charge of a trustee on the trust-property for expenses properly incurred in the execution of his trust, 2[and, save as otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, no charge shall be enforced against any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge].

Definitions of Mortgage;
Kinds of Mortgages;
Mode of execution of mortgages;
Redemption and Foreclosure of mortgages;
Clog on equity of redemption;
Distinction between mortgage and charge;

(33) Ganga Dhar vs Shankar Lal, AIR 1958 SC 70
A long term is not necessarily a clog on redemption. The question is essentially one of fact & has to be decided on the circumstances of each case. - mortgage 85 yrs + within 6 months - SC held 85yrs fine . mortgagor was not under any financial embarrassment & mortgagee did not act in unfair manner in his position as lender - but 6 months condition is not valid - and it will continue to be a mortgage even after that

(34) Pomal Kanji Govindji vs Vrajlal Karsandas Purohit, AIR 1989 SC 436: (1989) 1 SCC 1935: (1989) 1 SCC 458
The maxim 'Once a Mortgage, always a Mortgage & avoidance of provisions obstructing redemption as "clogs on redemption" are expressions of this judicial protection – it’s a settled law in England & in India that a mortgage cannot be made altogether irredeemable or redemption made illusory - 99 yrs mortgage (anomalous mortgage) - no payment possible before 99 yrs - no periodical payment possible - mortgager has right to demolish structure and create new buildings - suit for possession before 99 yrs - court held in favor - said given condition was clog on redemption

(35) Shivdev Singh vs Sucha Singh, AIR (2000) SC 1935: (2000) 4 SCC 326
The doctrine of clog on the equity of redemption has to be molded in modern conditions; the rule against a clog on the equity of redemption empowered the courts to relive a party from this bargain - Rs 7000 - mortgage 99yrs - usufuructs for 26yrs - sum meager - appellants took undue adv of mortgagor's financial condition

12. Gift(Ss 122-126)

Section 122. “Gift” defined.—
“Gift” is the transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.

Acceptance when to be made.—such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving.
If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.

COMMENTS

Validity of gift
Gift deed executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff with respect of property of her deceased husband. Defendant was not legally wedded wife of deceased. She being concubine was not entitled to inherit property. Gift deed executed by her is not valid;

P. Jayaramaiah v. Aragonda Munemma, AIR 2005 AP 26.

Section 123. Transfer how effected.—For the purpose of making a gift of immoveable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses.

For the purpose of making a gift of moveable property, the transfer may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery.

Such delivery may be made in the same way as goods sold may be delivered.

COMMENTS

Unregistered gift of immovable property
Under section 123 a gift of immoveable property cannot pass any title to the donee if it is not registered. Any oral gift of immoveable property cannot be made in view of the provision of section 123 of the Act, mere delivery of possession without written instrument cannot confer any title;

R.N. Dawar v. Ganga Ram Saran Dhama, AIR 1993 Del 19.

Section 124. Gift of existing and future property.—
A gift comprising both existing and future property is void as to the latter.

Section 125. Gift to several of whom one does not accept.—
A gift of a thing to two or more donees, of whom one does not accept it, is void as to the interest which he would have taken had he accepted

Section 126. When gift may be suspended or revoked.—

The donor and donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked; but a gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere will of the donor, is void wholly or in part, as the case may be.

A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of consideration) in which, if it were a contract, it might be rescinded.

Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked.

Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the rights of transferees for consideration without notice.

Illustrations
(a) A gives a field to B, reserving to himself, with B’s assent, the right to take back the field in case B and his descendants die before A. B dies without descendants in A’s lifetime. A may take back the field.
(b) A gives a lakh of rupees to B, reserving to himself, with B’s assent, the right to take back at pleasure Rs. 10,000 out of the lakh. The gift holds goods as to Rs. 90,000, but is void as to Rs. 10,000, which continue to belong to A.

Definition of gift;
Gifts are a kind of transfer of property in Transfer of Property Act(hereinafter referred as the Act) in India. Section 122 of the Act defines Gift. This is the transfer of property made volunotarily. There will be no consideration for the transfer.
Who are the Parties of Gift?
The parties in gift are known as donor and donee. The person who transfers the property by way of gift to another is known as donor. The person in whose favour property is transferred by gift is known as donee.

Elemenots of Gift

- There must be transfer of ownership of the property
- The transfer must be of an existing property - not future - corporeal or incorporeal - if gift comprises both future * existing prop then its void wrt future property - though transfer may be in future - prop must exist at time of date of gift - should be a transferable prop
- Both movable and immovable property can be transferred.
- The transfer must be voluntarily.
- The transfer must be gratuitous or without consideration.
- The property must be accepted by or on behalf of the person to whom it is transferred.
- donor must be competent - minor cannot make gift, trustee cannot make gift out of trust property unless authorized by terms of the trust

Mode of execution of gift;
Transfer Immovable property must be registered - movable property (registration optional)

Suspension and revocation of Gifts: Only under two conditions
- Revocation by an agreement
- Revocation on grounds of undue influence, fraud etc

(42) Tila Bewa vs Mana Bewa, AIR 1962 Ori 130
m-i-l gift to d-i-l -> gift deed contained an alleged condition that donee was to look after and serve the donor - the donee left the donor & remarried - the donor cancelled the gift - the court held that to look after the donor was only the donor's pious wish & not a condition, non fulfillment of which cud enable the donor to revoke or cancel the gift -
Court observe red - A gift subject to the condition that donee should maintain the donor(or meet funeral expenses) cannot be revoked u/s 126 TPA for failure of the donee to do so, firstly because there is no agreement between the parties that the gift cud be revoked, secondly this should not depend on the will of the donor again the failure of the donee to maintain the donor is not a contingency which should defeat the gift; all that can be said in donee's default is lack of consideration - S 126 thus provides against the revocation of a document of gift for failure of consideration

(43) Kartari vs Kewal Krishan AIR 1972 HP 117
Gift deed executed by an old widow under undue influence & fraud is void - male collaterals take old lady to Una in absence of her daughter on pretext of treatment - get a gift deed signed by her of all her property - also take possession of the property- contend that old lady wanted property to be in possession of her husband's heirs - court rejected contention as this was not mentioned in the gift deed - held transaction appears suspicious - mere fact that beneficiaries had taken a leading part in the execution of the gift deed & this by itself is sufficient to prove that they dominated the will of the donor & exercised undue influence in obtaining an unfair adv over the natural heir, the daughter of the heir, of the entire properties.