Doctrine of estoppel. – Sec.43 of T.P.Act

Doctrine of feeding the estoppel. – Sec.43 of T.P.Act – mother is the owner – but son sold the property to the appellant – pending case first son died and his legal heirs brought on record- next the mother /plaintiff died leaving grand children as her legal heirs – The Appellant now took the shelter of Sec.43 of T.P. Act 

– Apex court held that We have, therefore, no doubt in our mind that in a case where a transferor never acquired by succession, inheritance or otherwise any interest in the property during his life time then the provision of Section 43 will not come into operation as against the heirs who succeeded the stridhan property of their grandmother.we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. = CIVIL APPEAL NO.3198 OF 2007 Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee ………Appellant Versus Bannama (D) by LRs. ……..Respondents = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41792

ADVMMOHAN ⋅ AUGUST 3, 2014 ⋅ 

Doctrine  of feeding the estoppel.  – Sec.43 of T.P.Act – mother is the owner – but son sold the property to the appellant – pending case first son died and his legal heirs brought on record- next the mother /plaintiff died leaving grand children as her legal heirs – The Appellant now took the shelter of Sec.43 of T.P. Act – Apex court held that We  have, therefore, no doubt in our mind that in a  case  where  a  transferor  never acquired by  succession,  inheritance  or  otherwise  any  interest  in  the property during his life time then the provision  of  Section  43  will  not come into  operation  as  against  the  heirs  who  succeeded  the  stridhan property of their grandmother.we do not find any merit in this appeal,  which is accordingly dismissed. =

“43.  Transfer by unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest  in

property transferred.—

Where a person fraudulently or erroneously  represents

that he is authorised 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.”

14.   The doctrine is based on the principle of law of estoppel.

It  simply

provides that when  a  person  by  fraudulent  or  erroneous  representation

transfers certain immovable property, claiming himself to be  the  owner  of

such property, then such transfer will subsequently operate on any  interest

which the transferor may acquire in such property during which the  contract

of transfer subsists.

This doctrine known in English law has form  part  of

Roman Dutch law, according to which where a granter has purported  to  grant

an interest in  the  land  which  he  did  not  at  the  time  possess,  but

subsequently acquires,  the  benefit  of  his  subsequent  acquisition  goes

automatically to the earlier grantee.  In other words, where a vendor  sells

without title in the property, but subsequently acquires title then a  right

accrues to the purchaser to claim interest  in  the  said  property  and  it

automatically goes in favour of the transferor.=

the appellant would not be entitled to take the benefit of the  doctrine  of

feeding the estoppel.

The finding of  facts  recorded  by  the  two  courts

based on the records that the original plaintiff was  the  owner  and  title

holder  of  the  said  property  

but  by   making   false   and   fraudulent

representation by her son that the property  belonged  to  him,  transferred

the same in favour of the appellant.   

During  the  pendency  of  the  first

appeal  before  the  district  court,  the  vendor  (son  of  the   original

plaintiff) died.

Although on the death, his children  did  not  inherit  or

succeeded any interest in the property, through their deceased  father,  but

they were impleaded as legal representatives in the appeal.

However,  during

the pendency of this appeal, the original plaintiff, namely, Bannamma  died.

After her death, the respondents being the  grand  children  inherited  and

acquired interest in the suit property.

Admittedly,  the  deceased  son  of

the original plaintiff, namely Nagi Reddy never  acquired  any  interest  in

the suit property owned  by  his  mother  during  his  life  time.

In  the

aforesaid premises, the doctrine of feeding  the  estoppel  would  not  come

into operation as against the grand  children  of  the  original  plaintiff.

Section 43 in our considered opinion applies when the transferor  having  no

interest in the  property  transfers  the  same  but  subsequently  acquires

interest in the said property, the purchaser may claim the benefit  of  such

subsequent acquisition of the property by the  transferor.

Had  it  been  a

case where the son Nagi Reddy during his life time  succeeded  or  inherited

the property but- died subsequently, then to some extent it could have  been

argued that the heirs of Nagi Reddy who inherited the property on the  death

of their father would be bound by  the  principle  of  estoppel.

We  have,

therefore, no doubt in our mind that in a  case  where  a  transferor  never

acquired by  succession,  inheritance  or  otherwise  any  interest  in  the

property during his life time then the provision  of  Section  43  will  not

come into  operation  as  against  the  heirs  who  succeeded  the  stridhan

property of their grandmother.

16.   For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal,  which

is accordingly dismissed.