Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Test 1 — Questions & Solutions
Every question from this subject test with the correct answer and a detailed, source-backed solution. Free to read. Want the real exam feel — a timer, instant scoring, and a topic-wise weakness report? Take it as a test.
50
Questions
7
Topics
+ solutions
Every question
Take this as a timed mock test — instant score + subject-wise analytics. First mock free, then ₹999/year for unlimited.
A mortgages property to B and later sells the same property to C, who has notice of the mortgage. What exactly does C acquire by the sale?
aOnly the equity of redemption
bThe full ownership free of B's mortgage
cA charge ranking equal to B's mortgage
dNothing, as the sale is void during subsistence of the mortgage
Answer: A
Where a mortgagor sells mortgaged property, the buyer takes only the equity of redemption, i.e., the mortgagor's residual right to redeem (S58, S60 read with the principle in S91(a)).
Q2Mortgages (S58–104)
Two successive mortgages are created over the same property. What is the position of the later (puisne) mortgagee in relation to the equity of redemption?
aHe becomes the absolute owner of the equity of redemption to the exclusion of the mortgagor
bHe is only an assignee of the equity of redemption of the prior mortgage and may sue to redeem it
cHe cannot redeem the prior mortgage at all
dHe ranks in priority over the prior mortgagee
Answer: B
A puisne mortgage is subject to the prior mortgage; the puisne mortgagee is merely an assignee of the equity of redemption of the prior mortgage and may sue to redeem it under S91(a).
Q3Mortgages (S58–104)
A puisne mortgagee sues for sale on his mortgage and impleads the prior mortgagee but claims no relief against him. What is the prior mortgagee's position?
aThe property is sold free of the prior mortgage
bThe prior mortgagee must compulsorily join in foreclosure
cThe property is sold subject to the prior mortgage, the prior mortgagee being a holder by title paramount outside the controversy
dThe prior mortgagee loses priority by reason of being impleaded
Answer: C
A puisne mortgagee may sue for sale, but the property is sold subject to the prior mortgage; where no relief is claimed against the prior mortgagee, he stands as a holder by title paramount outside the controversy.
Q4Mortgages (S58–104)
Under S58(f), a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds is best described as—
aA mere oral agreement to create security in future
bA charge that confers no security interest
cEffective only if registered as a mortgage deed
dA completed transfer, not a mere oral agreement
Answer: D
A mortgage by deposit of title-deeds is a completed transfer and not a mere oral agreement, as made clear by S58(f) of the TP Act.
Q5Mortgages (S58–104)
By virtue of the proviso to S48 of the Registration Act, 1908, an earlier mortgage by deposit of title-deeds, as against a subsequently executed and registered mortgage deed relating to the same property—
aTakes effect (i.e., has priority) over the subsequent registered mortgage deed
bLoses priority to the registered deed
cIs wholly void for want of registration
dRanks pari passu with the registered deed
Answer: A
The proviso to S48 of the Registration Act (inserted by Act 21 of 1929) provides that a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds takes effect against a subsequently executed and registered mortgage deed of the same property.
Q6Mortgages (S58–104)
In Imperial Bank of India v U Rai Gyaw, Lord Dunedin observed that in India, in contrast with English law, there is—
aAn absolute rule that legal mortgages defeat equitable mortgages
bNo distinction between legal and equitable mortgages as in English law
cA bar on mortgages by deposit of title-deeds
dA rule that equitable mortgages always prevail over legal mortgages
Answer: B
In Imperial Bank of India v U Rai Gyaw, Lord Dunedin held that in India there is no distinction between legal and equitable mortgages of the kind existing in English law, where a legal mortgage always prevails against an equitable one.
Q7Mortgages (S58–104)
After the amendment of S58(c), a condition that the sale shall become absolute on default in a mortgage by conditional sale must be—
aContained in a separate agreement of reconveyance retained by the mortgagor
bReduced to an oral understanding only
cEmbodied (engrossed) in the same document which effects or purports to effect the sale
dRegistered as an independent sale deed
Answer: C
After the amendment of S58(c), the condition of reconveyance/defeasance must be engrossed in the same deed; transactions split into a separate sale deed and a retained reconveyance agreement (as in the older cases) can no longer qualify.
Q8Mortgages (S58–104)
A mortgage deed of 1859 stipulated that on default of payment within two and a half years the mortgagee would become owner of the property; the redemption suit was filed about 60 years later. In Gopi Lal v Abdul Hamid the court—
aHeld that the mortgagee had validly become absolute owner on default
bDismissed the redemption suit as time-barred and barred by laches
cAllowed the mortgagee compensation for improvements
dApplied the rule 'once a mortgage always a mortgage' and refused to treat the stipulation as a bar to redemption
Answer: D
In Gopi Lal v Abdul Hamid the court applied the maxim 'once a mortgage always a mortgage', holding the mortgagee could not have believed himself absolutely entitled, and refused compensation for a building he had erected; such a clause is a clog on the equity of redemption.
Q9Mortgages (S58–104)
In Knightbridge Estates Trusts Ltd v Byrne, where a mortgage provided for repayment by 80 half-yearly instalments and demised the premises for 3000 years, the House of Lords held that the rule against perpetuities—
aHad no application to mortgages
bInvalidated the postponement of the date of redemption
cApplied so as to make the mortgage void ab initio
dRequired the redemption date to be within the lifetime of a living person plus a minority
Answer: A
In Knightbridge Estates Trusts Ltd v Byrne the House of Lords held that the rule against perpetuities has no application to mortgages, the equity of redemption being a present interest.
Q10Mortgages (S58–104)
A condition in a mortgage that the mortgagor may redeem whenever he likes is—
aVoid as offending the rule against perpetuities
bOutside the scope of the rule against perpetuity, being only an exercise of the present equity of redemption
cVoid as a clog on the equity of redemption
dVoid for uncertainty
Answer: B
Such a condition merely refers to exercise of the equity of redemption, which is a present interest, and so falls outside the rule against perpetuity.
Q11General principles of transfer (S5–37)
A, an heir-apparent to his father's estate, executes a deed for consideration purporting to transfer the share he expects to inherit. During the father's lifetime, what is the status of this transfer under the Transfer of Property Act?
aValid, because property of any kind may be transferred under Section 6
bVoidable at the option of the father
cVoid, because spes successionis (a mere chance of an heir-apparent succeeding) is expressly non-transferable under Section 6(a)
dValid only if the father consents in writing
Answer: C
Section 6(a) declares that the chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate is a mere possibility and cannot be transferred; such a transfer is void.
Q12General principles of transfer (S5–37)
Which of the following can be validly transferred under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
aA mere right to sue for damages
bAn easement apart from the dominant heritage
cThe salary of a public officer before it becomes payable
dAn actionable claim such as an unsecured debt
Answer: D
Under Section 6, an actionable claim is property and is transferable (Chapter 8), whereas a mere right to sue [6(e)], an easement apart from the dominant heritage [6(c)], and a public officer's salary [6(f)] are all non-transferable.
Q13General principles of transfer (S5–37)
A transfers an absolute estate in his field to B by a registered deed, but inserts a condition that B and his heirs shall never sell the field to any person outside A's family. What is the legal effect?
aThe condition is a valid partial restraint and the transfer takes effect subject to it
bBoth the transfer and the condition are void for repugnancy
cThe transfer is valid but the condition is void as an absolute restraint under Section 10
dThe transfer takes effect only on B obtaining the family's consent
Answer: A
A restriction barring transfer only to strangers (i.e., outside the family) is a partial restraint, held valid by the Privy Council in Muhammad Raza v Abbas Bandi Bibi; Section 10 voids only absolute restraints.
Q14General principles of transfer (S5–37)
A testator devises an absolute estate to his son, with a proviso that if the son sells the estate during the lifetime of the testator's wife, she may purchase it at one-fifth of its market value. Following Re Rosher, this condition is:
aA valid partial restraint, since it operates only during the wife's lifetime
bVoid, being in substance an absolute restraint on alienation under Section 10
cValid, because it is a mere option to purchase and not a prohibition
dVoid only as against the wife, the rest of the condition surviving
Answer: B
In Re Rosher, a power to buy back at a fraction of the market value was held to be in substance an absolute restraint on alienation and therefore void under the principle of Section 10; whether a restraint is absolute is a question of substance, not form.
Q15General principles of transfer (S5–37)
A makes a gift of his field to B on the condition that B sets fire to C's haystack. As regards the validity of the gift and the condition, which is correct?
aIt is a void condition subsequent, so the gift is good and the condition is ignored
bThe gift is good but B must compensate C
cIt is a void condition precedent, so the gift fails altogether
dThe gift is voidable at C's option
Answer: C
Under Section 25, a condition precedent that involves injury to another's property is void, and where a condition precedent is void the transfer itself fails.
Q16General principles of transfer (S5–37)
A makes a gift of his field to B with a proviso that if B does not within one year set fire to C's haystack, the gift shall be void. What is the effect under the Transfer of Property Act?
aThe gift fails because the condition is unlawful
bB must perform the condition to retain the gift
cThe gift reverts to A after one year
dThe gift is good and the void condition subsequent is simply disregarded
Answer: D
This is a void condition subsequent; under Section 32 (read with Section 25) a void condition subsequent does not affect the interest already created, so the gift is good and B may ignore the condition.
Q17General principles of transfer (S5–37)
A transfers Rs 5,000 to B on condition that B shall marry with the consent of C, D and E. E dies, and B then marries with the consent of C and D only. Has the condition precedent been fulfilled?
aYes, because a condition precedent is fulfilled by substantial compliance under Section 26
bNo, because consent of all three was a clear condition that cannot be evaded
cNo, unless B obtains the consent of E's legal representative
dYes, but only if B obtains the consent of C and D after the marriage
Answer: A
Section 26 provides that a condition precedent is deemed fulfilled if substantially complied with; the consent of the surviving persons C and D suffices, as illustrated in the section (cf. Dawson v Oliver-Massey).
Q18General principles of transfer (S5–37)
A transfers Rs 500 to B on condition that he execute a certain lease within three months of A's death, and if he neglects to do so, to C. B dies in A's lifetime. What is the effect on the gift over to C?
aIt fails, because the prior disposition did not fail in the manner contemplated
bIt takes effect, even though the prior disposition failed in a manner not contemplated by the transferor
cIt is void for uncertainty
dIt takes effect only if C is in existence at A's death
Answer: B
Under Section 27, where an ulterior disposition is made on failure of a prior disposition, the gift over takes effect although the failure did not occur in the manner contemplated by the transferor (illustration (a) to Section 27).
Q19General principles of transfer (S5–37)
A transfers property to his wife, but provides that in case she dies in his lifetime, the property he gave her shall go to B. A and his wife perish together and it cannot be proved that she died before him. What is the effect on the disposition in favour of B?
aIt takes effect, because the prior gift has failed
bIt takes effect in favour of B's representatives
cIt does not take effect, as the prior disposition did not fail in the particular manner intended
dIt is presumed the wife died first, so B takes
Answer: C
Section 27, second paragraph, provides that where the parties intend the ulterior disposition to take effect only if the prior disposition fails in a particular manner, the gift over fails unless it so fails (illustration (b) to Section 27).
A transfers property to B in trust for A and his intended wife successively for their lives, and after the death of the survivor, for the eldest son of the intended marriage for life, and after his death for A's second son. As regards the interest created for the eldest son of the marriage, which is correct?
aIt is valid because it is preceded by a prior life interest
bIt is void because property cannot be transferred to an unborn person even through a trust
cIt vests on the eldest son's birth as an absolute interest
dIt does not take effect because it does not extend to the whole of A's remaining interest in the property
Answer: D
Under section 13 (and its illustration), an interest for an unborn person must extend to the whole of the transferor's remaining interest; a mere life estate to the unborn eldest son does not, so it fails.
In Girish Dutt v Data Din, A gifted property to B (her nephew's daughter) for life, then to B's male descendants absolutely if any, but if none, to B's daughters without power of alienation, and if no descendants at all, then to her nephew. B died without issue. What was the legal position?
aThe gift to the unborn daughters was invalid under section 13, and the gift to the nephew therefore failed under section 16
bThe gift to B's daughters was valid as it was an absolute interest
cThe gift to the nephew was valid as an independent alternative limitation
dB took an absolute estate which passed to her heirs
Answer: A
Per Girish Dutt v Data Din, the gift to the unborn daughters was of a limited (non-absolute) interest and so void under section 13; the subsequent gift to the nephew, intended to take effect after that prior interest, failed under section 16.
Under section 14 (rule against perpetuity) as applied in India, what is the latest point up to which the vesting of an interest in the ultimate beneficiary may be lawfully postponed?
aLives in being plus a gross period of 21 years
bThe lifetime of one or more persons living at the date of transfer, plus the minority of a person in existence at the expiry of that period
cThe lifetime of the transferor only
dThe lifetime of one or more living persons plus 18 years in gross
Answer: B
Section 14 allows vesting to be postponed only up to the lifetime of living persons plus the minority of a person who exists at the end of that period; unlike English law's 21 years in gross, India uses the actual period of minority.
A makes a transfer to C for life, and then on trust for such son of C as shall first attain a stated age. Which limitation would be VOID under the rule against perpetuity in India?
aSuch son of C as shall first attain the age of 18
bEither age, since C's son is in any case unborn
cSuch son of C as shall first attain the age of 19
dNeither age, since the limitation is to a person already named
Answer: C
The book illustrates that limiting to C's son attaining 18 (the period of minority) is valid, but attaining 19 exceeds minority and the gift after C's death is void under section 14.
In applying the rule against perpetuity (except in cases of special powers of appointment), the question of remoteness is decided with regard to—
athe events that actually happen
bthe intention of the transferor as later proved
cthe events as they stand on the date the suit is filed
dthe possible events, not the actual events
Answer: D
Remoteness is judged by possible, not actual, events; section 114 of the Indian Succession Act uses the words 'may be delayed'. The two-bighas illustration shows a transfer void though it actually fell within the period.
After the amending Act of 1929, if on a transfer an interest is created for the benefit of a class of persons and the interest fails (under sections 13 or 14) with regard to some of them, what is the effect under section 15?
aThe interest fails only in regard to those persons and not the whole class
bThe interest fails as regards the whole class
cThe interest is valid for the whole class regardless of the failure
dThe transfer is wholly void including the prior interest
Answer: A
Section 15, as amended in 1929, provides that the interest fails in regard to those persons only and not the whole class; before the amendment it failed as to the whole class (Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh).
A bequeaths to B Rs 100, to be paid to him at the death of C. Before C dies, B dies. What is the position of B's interest?
aB's interest is contingent and lapses on his death before C
bB's interest is vested, and on his death his representatives are entitled to the legacy
cThe legacy reverts to A's estate because B never took possession
dThe legacy passes to C since the contingency failed
Answer: B
Under section 19, an interest taking effect on a certain event (death is certain) is vested even before possession; a vested interest is not defeated by the transferee's death before he obtains possession, so it passes to his representatives.
Under the Explanation to section 19, an intention that an interest shall NOT be vested is to be inferred from which of the following?
aA provision postponing the enjoyment of the interest
bThe reservation of a prior interest to another person
cNone of these, by themselves, negate vesting
dA direction that income be accumulated until the time of enjoyment arrives
Answer: C
The Explanation to section 19 expressly states that none of these provisions—postponed enjoyment, a prior interest, accumulation, or a gift over on a future event—by itself shows an intention that the interest is not vested.
Q28Sale of immovable property (S54–57)
Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a sale of tangible immovable property of the value of less than one hundred rupees may be effected by:
aOnly a registered instrument
bOnly delivery of the property
cAn oral agreement followed by payment of price
dEither a registered instrument or by delivery of the property
Answer: D
Section 54 permits tangible immovable property below Rs 100 to be transferred either by a registered instrument or by delivery of possession; for property of Rs 100 and upwards (or a reversion/intangible thing) only a registered instrument will do.
Q29Sale of immovable property (S54–57)
A executes and gets registered a sale deed of his house worth Rs 5 lakh in favour of B, but B has not yet paid any part of the price, the deed reciting that price is 'promised'. Which statement is correct under Section 54?
aThe sale is complete on registration; non-payment only gives the seller a charge for unpaid price
bNo sale takes place until the entire price is actually paid
cThe sale is void for want of consideration at the time of registration
dThe sale is complete only if possession is also delivered
Answer: A
Per Vidyadhar v Manikrao and the words 'price paid or promised', actual payment of price is not a sine qua non; once the deed is executed and registered the sale is complete, and the unpaid seller has a charge under Section 55(4)(b).
Q30Sale of immovable property (S54–57)
Which of the following correctly distinguishes a contract for sale of immovable property under Section 54 from a sale?
aA contract for sale of itself creates a charge on the property
bA contract for sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on the property
cA contract for sale of itself transfers ownership to the buyer
dA contract for sale must always be by a registered instrument to be enforceable
Answer: B
Section 54 expressly provides that a contract for sale is merely an agreement that a sale shall take place on settled terms and 'does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property'.
Q31Sale of immovable property (S54–57)
The Supreme Court in Kewal Krishan v Rajesh Kumar (2021) held that a sale deed executed without payment of price and without any provision for payment at a future date is:
aA valid sale, since payment of price is never essential
bMerely voidable at the option of the seller
cVoid and of no legal effect, not a sale at all in the eyes of law
dConvertible into a gift automatically
Answer: C
While Vidyadhar holds price need not be paid contemporaneously, Kewal Krishan clarifies that where there is neither payment nor a promise of future payment, there is no price and hence no sale—the transaction is void.
Q32Sale of immovable property (S54–57)
Regarding the word 'price' in Section 54, which proposition is correct as laid down by the Supreme Court?
aPrice may consist of money or any other valuable consideration
bForbearance to sue is a valid price for a sale
cA transfer in satisfaction of a dower debt is always a sale
dPrice means money only; if the consideration is something other than money it may be an exchange or barter, not a sale
Answer: D
In Gannon Dunkerley and CIT v Motor and General Stores, the Court held money consideration is essential to a sale; if consideration is not money it may be exchange or barter but not a sale.
Q33Sale of immovable property (S54–57)
A power-of-attorney holder, expressly authorised by the owner to sell, executes a sale deed of the property. Which statement reflects the legal position?
aA power of attorney is not a sale; title passes only by a registered sale deed, but a sale executed by an authorised attorney is valid
bA 'GPA sale' itself validly transfers title, so no separate registered conveyance is needed
cA power of attorney is a sale and the holder thereby becomes the owner
dAn attorney can never execute a sale even with express authority
Answer: A
A power of attorney is not a sale and 'GPA sales' do not convey title; immovable property is transferred only by a registered conveyance, but a sale deed executed by a duly and expressly authorised attorney is valid (A Bhagyamma; Suraj Lamps).
Q34Sale of immovable property (S54–57)
Under Section 55(1)(a), as amended in 1929, the seller's duty to disclose extends to a material defect:
aIn the property only, never in the title
bIn the property or in the seller's title thereto, of which the seller is and the buyer is not aware and which the buyer could not with ordinary care discover
cIn the property, even if the buyer could have discovered it with ordinary care
dIn the title only, not in the physical property
Answer: B
The 1929 amendment inserted 'or in the seller's title thereto' (giving effect to Haji Essa v Dayabhai), and the duty arises only where the defect is latent—unknown to the buyer and not discoverable with ordinary care.
Q35Leases (S105–117)
Under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a lease is a transfer of a right to enjoy immovable property. The consideration (price) paid for such a transfer is properly classified as:
aOnly rent payable periodically in money
bOnly a lump-sum premium paid in advance
cEither a premium (paid once or periodically) or rent (paid periodically), or both
dOnly money, never a share of crops or services
Answer: C
Section 105 defines the consideration as a price paid or promised, or money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, rendered periodically (rent) or on specified occasions; the lump sum is the premium and the periodical payment is the rent.
Q36Leases (S105–117)
A lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes, where there is no contract or local usage to the contrary, is deemed under Section 106 to be:
aA lease from month to month, terminable by fifteen days' notice
bA permanent lease not terminable without the lessee's consent
cA tenancy at will determinable at any time without notice
dA lease from year to year, terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by six months' notice
Answer: D
Section 106 provides that a lease for agricultural or manufacturing purposes is, in the absence of a contrary contract or usage, deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable by six months' notice.
Q37Leases (S105–117)
Under Section 106, a lease of immovable property for any purpose OTHER than agricultural or manufacturing, absent a contrary contract or local usage, is deemed to be:
aA lease from month to month, terminable on either side by fifteen days' notice
bA lease from year to year terminable by six months' notice
cA lease for one year certain
dA tenancy at sufferance
Answer: A
Section 106 deems all non-agricultural, non-manufacturing leases to be from month to month, terminable by fifteen days' notice in the absence of contract or usage to the contrary.
Q38Leases (S105–117)
A notice to quit under Section 106 is challenged as defective because it was not framed to expire with the end of a month of the tenancy. As amended by the 2002 amendment, what is the correct legal position?
aThe notice is void because it must always expire with the end of the tenancy month
bA notice is no longer rendered invalid merely because the period mentioned falls short or the notice does not expire with the end of a tenancy period, provided the deficiency is waived or the suit is filed after the period elapses
cSuch a notice is valid only for agricultural leases
dThe notice must be for one full calendar year regardless of the tenancy
Answer: B
The 2002 amendment to Section 106 added a saving so that a notice is not invalid merely because the period specified is short of or does not expire at the end of the tenancy month, removing the older technical strictness.
Q39Leases (S105–117)
Under Section 107, a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made ONLY by:
aAn oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession
bA written but unregistered instrument signed by the lessee alone
cA registered instrument
dMutation in revenue records
Answer: C
Section 107 requires that a lease from year to year, exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent be made by a registered instrument; other leases may be made by oral agreement with delivery of possession.
Q40Leases (S105–117)
A lease for eleven months is created orally and possession is delivered to the lessee. As regards form under Section 107, this lease is:
aVoid for want of registration
bValid only if reduced to writing within three months
cValid only if a yearly rent is reserved
dValid, since leases not falling within the registration requirement may be made orally accompanied by delivery of possession
Answer: D
Section 107 permits leases other than those from year to year, exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent to be made by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession; an eleven-month lease so made is valid.
Q41Leases (S105–117)
Where a lease of immovable property is made by a registered instrument under Section 107, the instrument must be executed by:
aBoth the lessor and the lessee
bThe lessor alone
cThe lessee alone
dTwo attesting witnesses only
Answer: A
The third paragraph of Section 107 requires that where a lease is made by a registered instrument, such instrument shall be executed by both the lessor and the lessee.
Q42Exchange & gift (S118–129)
A transfers to B a house worth Rs 1,50,000, and B transfers to A a field worth Rs 1,00,000 together with Rs 50,000 in cash. How is this transaction best characterised under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
aA sale, because money has passed and pre-emption would be attracted
bAn exchange, because neither thing transferred is money only
cA gift, because part of the consideration is gratuitous
dA partition, because property is being mutually adjusted
Answer: B
Under S118, a transaction is an exchange so long as neither thing is money only; payment of cash merely to equalise value does not convert it into a sale (Ismail Shah v Saleh Muhammad), so pre-emption is not attracted.
Q43Exchange & gift (S118–129)
Which of the following transactions would correctly fall within the definition of 'exchange' under Section 118?
aA partition of jointly-owned property among co-owners
bA husband transferring property to his wife in discharge of her claim to maintenance
cTransfer of certain properties where the consideration is shares in a limited company
dA lessee surrendering his lease and the landlord granting him a lease of another property
Answer: C
Per CIT v Motor & General Stores (P) Ltd, a transfer where consideration is shares (not money) is an exchange; maintenance discharge, partition, and lease-surrender are not exchanges as there is no mutual transfer of ownership of two things.
Q44Exchange & gift (S118–129)
Regarding the mode of completing an exchange of tangible immovable property worth Rs 100 or more, which statement is correct?
aAn oral exchange with delivery of possession is sufficient and a registered deed is unnecessary
bTwo separate registered conveyances are mandatory; a single deed is invalid
cOnly attestation by two witnesses is required, registration being optional
dIt must be effected in the manner provided for transfer by sale, i.e. by a registered instrument, and an oral exchange is not permissible
Answer: D
S118 requires an exchange to be made in the manner provided for sale; for immovable property of Rs 100 or more S54 applies, so a registered instrument is necessary and an oral exchange is inadmissible (read with the 1929 amendment to S49 Registration Act). A single deed suffices.
Q45Exchange & gift (S118–129)
A party to an exchange is deprived of the property he received because of a defect in the other party's title. Under Section 119, which remedy is available?
aHe may, at his option, recover the thing he transferred, but only if it is still in the possession of the other party, his legal representative, or a transferee from him without consideration
bHe may always recover the property he transferred, even from a transferee for value with notice
cHe is limited to damages alone and cannot seek return of his property in any case
dHe must wait for the other party to elect between compensation and re-conveyance
Answer: A
Under S119, the deprived party may, unless a contrary intention appears, claim loss or at his option the return of the thing transferred, but only if it remains with the other party, his legal representative, or a gratuitous transferee; the right of re-entry is lost against a transferee for consideration.
Q46Exchange & gift (S118–129)
On an exchange of money, what does each party warrant under the Transfer of Property Act?
aThe title of the money, which passes only by registration
bThe genuineness of the money given by him
cThe equality of the sums exchanged
dBoth the genuineness and the title of the money
Answer: B
S121 provides that on an exchange of money each party warrants the genuineness of the money he gives; there is no warranty of title since title to money passes by mere honest delivery, but a forged note or false coin works a total failure of consideration.
Under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the doctrine of part performance can be invoked by a transferee:
aOnly as a sword, to file a suit for recovery of possession against the transferor
bBoth as a sword and a shield, exactly like the English equity
cOnly as a shield, to protect possession already taken in part performance against the transferor
dOnly to claim damages from the transferor, not to protect possession
Answer: C
S53A confers a statutory right that is purely defensive (a shield, not a sword); the transferee may use it only to protect possession against the transferor, not to found an independent action (Sardar Govindrao Mahadik v Devi Sahai).
A enters into a written, signed contract to sell land to B for consideration, and B is put in possession and is willing to perform his part. The contract, though required to be registered, is executed in 1995 and remains unregistered. Can B claim protection under Section 53A?
aNo, because after the 2001 amendment the contract must be registered, and that applies retrospectively
bNo, because part performance never applies to an unregistered document
cYes, because registration is irrelevant to Section 53A in all cases
dYes, because the 2001 amendment requiring registration is prospective and does not apply to a pre-2001 agreement
Answer: D
The Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001) requiring registration to claim S53A is prospective; a contract executed before that date need not be registered (Gurmeet Kaur v Harbhajan Singh).
Which of the following is NOT an essential pre-condition for invoking the protection of Section 53A?
aA suit for specific performance of the contract is still within the period of limitation
bThere is a contract to transfer for consideration any immovable property, in writing signed by the transferor
cThe transferee has taken or continued in possession in part performance and done some act in furtherance of the contract
dThe transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract
Answer: A
Limitation is not a pre-condition of S53A; even if a suit for specific performance is time-barred, the transferee may plead part performance in defence to protect possession (Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi v Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi).
The protection of Section 53A is expressly subject to a proviso. That proviso protects:
aAny subsequent gratuitous transferee, whether or not he had notice
bA transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof
cThe original transferor against his own contract
dA subsequent transferee for consideration even if he had notice of the prior contract
Answer: B
The proviso to S53A saves the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance; thus a bona fide subsequent purchaser for value without notice defeats the S53A claim.
Practiced enough reading? Attempt Transfer of Property Act, 1882 mocks under real exam conditions and track your weak subjects.
Law Mock is an independent preparation resource and is not affiliated with any High Court, Public Service Commission, or government body. All exam information is sourced from official notifications and is updated periodically.
