Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Tanu Ram Bora, purchased suit land by a registered sale deed dated 06.01.1990 from Pranab Kumar Bora, husband of defendant no.2 and father of defendant nos. 3 to 8. At the time of sale, the land had been declared ceiling surplus in 1988 and acquired by the government. However, on 14.09.1990, the land was declared ceiling free. The appellant mutated the land in his name on 18.12.1991. On 09.04.1995, defendant no.1, an ex-police officer, illegally entered the suit land, prompting the appellant to file Title Suit No. 230/1995 seeking possession, declaration of title, and permanent injunction. The trial court initially decreed the suit on 28.08.1998, holding that the appellant had valid title. On appeal by defendant no.1, the first appellate court remanded the matter on 15.09.1999, framing an additional issue on whether the suit land was ceiling surplus and whether the vendor had saleable right. On remand, the trial court dismissed the suit on 04.06.2003, holding that the vendor had no right to sell as the land was ceiling surplus. The first appellate court confirmed this, also noting that defendant no.1 had no rights under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The High Court dismissed the second appeal on 17.07.2015. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act applies because the vendor subsequently acquired title when the land became ceiling free on 14.09.1990. The court noted that the vendor's heirs did not challenge the sale, and defendant no.1's rights were already negated. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments below and decreed the suit, granting the appellant possession, declaration of title, and permanent injunction against defendant no.1.
Headnote
A) Transfer of Property Act - Section 43 - Feeding the Grant by Estoppel - Doctrine of Subsequent Acquisition of Title - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 43 - The appellant purchased suit land by registered sale deed dated 06.01.1990 when it was ceiling surplus land. Subsequently, on 14.09.1990, the land was declared ceiling free. The Supreme Court held that Section 43 of the T.P. Act applies as the vendor subsequently acquired title when the land became ceiling free, and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the subsequently acquired interest. The courts below erred in not applying Section 43. (Paras 7.3-8) B) Transfer of Property Act - Section 43 - Ingredients - Fraudulent or Erroneous Representation - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 43 - The respondent argued that the appellant must prove fraudulent or erroneous representation by the vendor. The Supreme Court held that the representation need not be fraudulent; it is sufficient that the transferor erroneously represented that he had authority to transfer. In this case, the vendor executed a sale deed, which impliedly represented that he had title. (Paras 7.3-7.4) C) Transfer of Property Act - Section 43 - Application to Ceiling Surplus Land - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 43 - The suit land was ceiling surplus at the time of sale but later became ceiling free. The Supreme Court held that Section 43 applies because the vendor's interest in the land revived when the ceiling was lifted, and the appellant's rights under the sale deed are protected. The mutation of the appellant's name in revenue records further supports his claim. (Paras 7.1-7.4) D) Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - Interference with Concurrent Findings - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The High Court dismissed the second appeal confirming the trial court and first appellate court's findings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the substantial question of law regarding the applicability of Section 43 of the T.P. Act, and thus the concurrent findings were not sustainable. (Paras 2, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant/original plaintiff is entitled to protection under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, when the suit land was declared ceiling surplus at the time of sale but later became ceiling free, and whether the concurrent findings of the courts below are sustainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the trial court, first appellate court, and High Court, and decreed the suit filed by the original plaintiff. The appellant is entitled to possession of the suit land by evicting defendant no.1, declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land, and permanent injunction against defendant no.1.
Law Points
- Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- applies when a transferor fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer property
- and subsequently acquires interest in that property
- the transferee can claim the benefit of the subsequently acquired interest. The doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel applies even if the transferor had no title at the time of transfer
- provided the transferee acted in good faith.
