Landmark Cases on the Transfer of Property Act

The case law on the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is a small canon of decisions repeated in every commentary and every paper. The judiciary examiner expects the candidate to have the leading Privy Council, Federal Court and Supreme Court authority for each section in active recall, with case name, citation and one-sentence ratio. This article digests that canon, organised section by section. For each cluster, two to four leading authorities are stated with their citation, the proposition for which they stand, and a cross-link to the sibling article that develops the doctrine in full.

The digest is not a substitute for the doctrinal articles — it is a recall device. Use it before an exam to refresh the cases; use the linked sibling articles to relearn the underlying law where memory fails.

General principles — Sections 5 to 11

The opening sections of the Act establish the general framework: what a transfer is (S.5), what may be transferred (S.6), who may transfer (S.7), the operation of the transfer (S.8), and the limits on conditions imposed on the transferee (S.10 and S.11).

Tagore v Tagore (1872) 9 Beng LR 377 (PC) — the Privy Council laid down that a transfer of property to an unborn person is invalid unless the transfer first vests in a living person. The decision is the historical foundation for Sections 13 and 14 of the Act and is treated in the article on transfer for benefit of unborn person.

Vishnu Agencies (P) Ltd v Commercial Tax Officer (1978) 1 SCC 520 — the Supreme Court explained that “transfer” in Section 5 means the conveyance of an interest in property from one living person to another. The decision draws the line between transfer and other dealings with property and is canvassed in the introductory article on the scope and application of TPA.

T Ravi v B Chinna Narasimha (2017) 7 SCC 342 — restated that a transfer under Section 5 must be inter vivos and contemporaneous; a testamentary disposition stands outside the Act. The case is one of the most cited modern authorities on Section 5.

What may be transferred — Section 6

Section 6 contains nine clauses listing things that cannot be transferred. The judiciary canon centres on three of them.

Rajes Kanta Roy v Santi Debi AIR 1957 SC 255 — on Section 6(a), spes successionis is not transferable; the chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate confers no transferable interest. The case is the leading modern authority and is treated in the article on what may be transferred.

Anand Behera v State of Orissa AIR 1956 SC 17 — held that a right to enter upon land and carry away fish was a profit a prendre, a benefit arising from immovable property, and an interest in land within Section 3. The case is the bridge between Section 6 and the law of easements. Its importance for the lease-versus-easement question is canvassed in the article on the distinction between easements, lease and licence.

Suresh Chand v Kundan (2001) 10 SCC 221 — saplings on land at the date of agreement vest in the transferee. The case is the modern restatement on the “attached to the earth” question and is discussed in the article on the statutory definitions in Section 3.

Persons competent — Section 7

Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v Municipal Board Sitapur AIR 1965 SC 1923 — on the competence of statutory authorities to transfer; the question is treated under persons competent to transfer. The decision applied Section 7 to a municipal corporation and clarified the requirement of legal title and competence.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v P Kesavan (2004) 9 SCC 772 — reinforced that competence to transfer is a question of statutory and constitutional capacity, not of mere physical possession. The case has implications for transfers by public-sector undertakings.

Operation of transfer — Sections 8, 10 and 11

Sections 10 and 11 ban absolute restraints on alienation and absolute restraints on the enjoyment of an interest. The exam canon is small but heavily examined.

Rosher v Rosher (1884) 26 Ch D 801 — the English foundation. A condition that the transferee shall not sell except to the transferor at one-twentieth of the value was held to be an absolute restraint and void. The proposition was carried into Indian law and is examined in the article on conditions restraining alienation.

K Muniswamy v K Venkataswamy AIR 2001 SC 2812 — the Supreme Court applied the partial-restraint exception and held that a restraint limited in time or to a class of persons may be valid.

Bhavani Amma Kanakadevi v C S I Dakshina Kerala Maha Idavaka 2008 (3) KLT 53 — partial restraint upheld where the restriction was reasonable in scope.

Unborn persons and perpetuity — Sections 13 and 14

Sections 13 and 14 form a single doctrinal block. The Privy Council laid the foundation in Tagore v Tagore and the Supreme Court refined it in modern authorities.

Sridhar v N Revanna (2020) 11 SCC 221 — a Section 13 transfer must vest the whole of the transferor’s remaining interest in the unborn person. A life estate to the unborn followed by a remainder is invalid. The decision is the modern restatement and is treated in the article on transfer for the benefit of an unborn person.

Soundara Rajan v Natarajan AIR 1925 PC 244 — the Privy Council’s leading exposition of the rule against perpetuities. The case is discussed in the article on the rule against perpetuity.

Rambaran v Ram Mohit AIR 1967 SC 744 — overruled the earlier line that confused perpetuity with the rule against accumulations and put Section 14 on a firm conceptual basis.

Vested and contingent interests — Sections 19 and 21

Rajes Kanta Roy v Santi Debi AIR 1957 SC 255 (the same case as above) — the seminal Supreme Court statement that postponement of enjoyment is not postponement of vesting. Where the document confers a present right with deferred enjoyment, the interest is vested. The case is the doctrinal pivot of the article on vested and contingent interests.

Sundar Bibi v Rajendra Narain AIR 1925 All 389 — the Allahabad High Court restated the rule that a conditional limitation creates a contingent interest, while a mere postponement creates a vested interest.

F M Devaru Ganapathi Bhat v Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat (2004) 2 SCC 504 — modern Supreme Court application of the vested-versus-contingent distinction in a Hindu family settlement.

Doctrine of election — Section 35

Cooper v Cooper (1874) LR 7 HL 53 — the foundational House of Lords decision that a person taking a benefit under an instrument must adopt the whole, and cannot at once accept what is in his favour and reject what is against him.

C Beepathumma v V S Kadambolithaya AIR 1965 SC 241 — the leading Supreme Court restatement of the equitable principle “no approbation and reprobation”. The case is treated in detail in the article on the doctrine of election.

Dhanpati v Devi Prasad (1970) 3 SCC 779 — election presupposes a proprietary interest in the transferor; without it, Section 35 has no application.

Mohammad Afzal v Ghulam Kasim (1903) ILR 30 Cal 843 (PC) — the Privy Council’s leading authority on the same-transaction requirement; election lies only between alternatives in the same instrument.

Apportionment — Sections 36 and 37

Satyendra Nath v Nilkantha (1894) ILR 21 Cal 383 — the Calcutta High Court held that the Indian rule of apportionment under Section 36 is limited to the transfer of the person entitled to receive, not bound to pay. The case is the foundation of the article on apportionment.

E D Sassoon & Co v CIT AIR 1954 SC 470 — the leading Supreme Court authority on the contract-to-the-contrary qualification in Section 36.

Lis pendens — Section 52

Bellamy v Sabine (1857) 1 De G & J 566 — Turner LJ’s and Lord Cranworth’s expositions are the foundation. The doctrine rests on necessity, not notice; without it, the integrity of judicial proceedings would collapse.

Faiyaz Husain Khan v Prag Narain (1907) 34 IA 102 — the leading Privy Council case in India. A transfer pendente lite is subordinated to the rights established by the decree, not annulled. The case is the spine of the article on the doctrine of lis pendens.

Nagubai Ammal v B Shama Rao AIR 1956 SC 593 — restated the rule for India: the transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree, not deprived of all rights, and may take what remains after the decree is satisfied.

Amit Kumar Shah v Farida Khatoon AIR 2005 SC 2209 — the modern Supreme Court restatement, applied to a partition suit.

Khemchand Shankar Choudhari v Vishnu Hari Patil (1983) 1 SCC 18 — the transferee pendente lite stands as a representative-in-interest of the transferor.

Fraudulent transfers — Section 53

Twyne’s Case (1601) 3 Co Rep 80 — the English foundation; secrecy is a badge of fraud. The case set the framework for treating sham conveyances at the suit of creditors.

Mina Kumari v Bijoy Singh (1916) 44 IA 72 (PC) — the Privy Council distinguished a sham conveyance from a fraudulent conveyance. The decision is the leading exposition of the two doctrines and is treated in the article on fraudulent transfers.

Musahar Sahu v Hakim Lal (1915) 43 IA 104 (PC) — preference of one creditor over others is not a fraud under Section 53; a debtor may pay one creditor in full.

Abdul Shukoor v Arji Papa Rao AIR 1963 SC 1150 — the leading Supreme Court case on the two-stage burden of proof under Section 53.

Part performance — Section 53A

Maddison v Alderson (1883) LR 8 App Cas 467 — the English equitable doctrine. The defendant’s acts of part performance must be unequivocally referable to the contract.

Ram Niranjan Kajaria v Sheo Prakash Kajaria (2015) 10 SCC 203 — the modern Supreme Court statement of the requirements of Section 53A in India after the 2001 amendment requiring the contract to be registered. The case is treated in the article on the doctrine of part performance.

Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi v Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (2002) 3 SCC 676 — Section 53A is a defensive shield, not a sword. The transferee in possession cannot use it to enforce the contract; he can only resist a suit for ejectment.

Sale — Sections 54 to 57

Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd v State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656 — the Supreme Court’s scathing rejection of “sale” by general power of attorney coupled with agreement to sell. A sale of immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards must be by registered instrument under Section 54. The case is canvassed in the article on the sale of immovable property.

Hardip Kaur v Kailash (2012) 11 SCC 681 — restated that the contract for sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.

Vidhyadhar v Manikrao (1999) 3 SCC 573 — the question of payment of consideration is distinct from the passing of title; absence of payment does not, by itself, make the sale void.

Mortgage — Sections 58 to 104

The mortgage canon contains the largest cluster of cases.

Bhagwan Sahai v Bhagwan Din (1890) ILR 12 All 387 — one of the earliest expositions of the difference between a sale with right of repurchase and a mortgage by conditional sale, the question central to the article on the mortgage and its six kinds.

Pomal Kanji Govindji v Vrajlal Karsandas Purohit AIR 1989 SC 436 — the Supreme Court restated the principle of “once a mortgage, always a mortgage”. A clog on the equity of redemption is void.

Murarilal v Devkaran AIR 1965 SC 225 — on the right of redemption under Section 60; the right is co-extensive with the right of foreclosure or sale.

Achal Reddy v Ramakrishna Reddiar (1990) 4 SCC 706 — the modern restatement of the requirements of an English mortgage and a usufructuary mortgage.

Imperial Bank of India v U Rai Gyaw Thu AIR 1923 PC 211 — the leading Privy Council authority on equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds and on gross negligence as a priority-shifter, treated in the article on notice, actual and constructive.

Lloyds Bank Ltd v P E Guzdar & Co AIR 1930 Cal 22 — the leading Indian decision on gross negligence in failing to inquire into prior encumbrances; the omission to search the register equates to constructive notice.

Tilakdhari Lal v Khedan Lal AIR 1921 PC 112 — the Privy Council on registration as constructive notice, codified in Explanation I to Section 3.

Marshalling, contribution and subrogation — Sections 81, 82 and 92

Aldrich v Cooper (1803) 8 Ves 382 — the foundational equitable doctrine of marshalling, treated in the article on marshalling and contribution.

Gokuldas Gopaldas v Puranmal Premsukhdas (1884) ILR 10 Cal 1035 (PC) — the foundational Privy Council exposition of subrogation in Indian law. The case is the doctrinal anchor of the article on the doctrine of subrogation.

Bisseswar Prasad Sahi v Lala Sarnam Singh AIR 1939 PC 32 — subrogation is only to the extent paid; the rights of the redeeming party are not enlarged.

Hira Singh v Jai Singh AIR 1937 All 588 (FB) — a redeeming co-mortgagor is subrogated only to the shares of his fellows.

Tacking and Clayton’s Case — Section 93

Devaynes v Noble (Clayton’s Case) (1816) 1 Mer 572 — Sir William Grant MR’s rule of appropriation in current accounts. Treated in the article on the doctrine of tacking and the rule in Clayton’s Case.

Hopkinson v Rolt (1861) 9 HLC 514 — the House of Lords held that notice of a subsequent encumbrance prevents the prior mortgagee from tacking further advances. The proposition was incorporated into Section 93 in its altered form.

Deeley v Lloyds Bank [1912] AC 756 — modern application of Clayton’s Case to bank overdraft accounts; failure to rule off the account allows the rule to apply and discharge the debt.

Charges — Sections 100 and 101

Dattatreya Shanker Mote v Anand Chintaman Datar (1974) 2 SCC 799 — the leading Supreme Court statement of the difference between a charge and a mortgage, treated in the article on charges. A charge does not transfer any interest in property; it is only a security for payment.

K J Nathan v S V Maruthi Rao AIR 1965 SC 430 — the proviso to Section 100 protects a transferee for consideration without notice from the charge.

Leases — Sections 105 to 117

Anthony v K C Ittoop and Sons (2000) 6 SCC 394 — the strict view of Section 107: an unregistered instrument cannot create a lease, but a periodic tenancy may yet be inferred from possession and payment of rent. Treated in the article on leases of immovable property.

Associated Hotels of India Ltd v R N Kapoor AIR 1959 SC 1262 — Subba Rao J’s four propositions for distinguishing lease from licence; the most cited case in this part of the Act.

Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co v Khaja Midhat Noor AIR 1988 SC 1470 — long-term exclusive-possession arrangement styled as a licence held to be a lease. The case appears in both the lease and the lease-versus-licence articles.

Pradeep Oil Corporation v Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2011) 5 SCC 270 — the modern application of the same doctrine; a fifty-year arrangement under the Government Grants Act was held to be a lease.

Bhawanji Lakhamshi v Himatlal Jamnadas Dani AIR 1972 SC 819 — the foundational Supreme Court decision on Section 116; assent must be referable to a desire to permit continued possession. Treated in the article on holding over and tenancy by sufferance.

V Dhanapal Chettiar v Yesodai Ammal AIR 1979 SC 1745 (CB) — the Constitution Bench held that a notice under Section 106 is not a pre-condition to a suit for eviction on a ground specified in a state rent control statute. Treated in the article on the notice to quit under Section 106.

Bhagabandas Agarwalla v Bhagwandas Kanu (1977) 2 SCC 646 — purposive construction of a Section 106 notice; ut res magis valeat quam pereat.

T Lakshmipathi v P Nithyananda Reddy (2003) 5 SCC 150 — the five conditions for merger under Section 111(d), treated in the article on the determination of lease.

Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd v Federal Motors (P) Ltd (2005) 1 SCC 705 — mesne profits payable at the re-letting rate by a tenant who continues in possession after determination.

Section 108 — lessor and lessee

Pradeep Oil Corporation v MCD (2011) 5 SCC 270 — suspension of rent on partial eviction by the lessor under Section 108(c). Treated in the article on the rights and liabilities of lessor and lessee.

A Mahalakshmi v Bala Venkatram (2020) 2 SCC 531 — the modern restatement of the test for sub-letting under Section 108(j): exclusive legal possession in the third party.

Mahendra Saree Emporium v G C Srinivasa Murthy (2005) 1 SCC 481 — the burden of proving sub-letting; presumption arises once parting with possession is shown.

Exchange — Sections 118 to 121

Ram Kristo v Dhankisto AIR 1969 SC 204 — an exchange must be completed in the manner provided for sale; the writing-and-registration requirement applies. Treated in the article on exchange under Sections 118 to 121.

Harendra H Mehta v Mukesh H Mehta AIR 1999 SC 2054 — both properties in an exchange must be in India; foreign-property exchange is not within the Act.

CIT v Motor & General Stores (P) Ltd AIR 1968 SC 200 — consideration in shares is exchange, not sale.

Gifts — Sections 122 to 129

K Balakrishnan v K Kamalam (2004) 1 SCC 581 — acceptance of a gift may be inferred from possession; the donor may reserve enjoyment without invalidating the gift. Treated in the article on gifts of movable and immovable property.

Renikuntla Rajamma v K Sarwanamma (2014) 9 SCC 445 — the gift is complete on registration; delivery of possession is not a separate condition for a gift of immovable property.

Asokan v Lakshmikutty (2007) 13 SCC 210 — registration coupled with delivery of possession constitutes acceptance.

Hafeeza Bibi v Sk Farid (2011) 5 SCC 654 — the saving for Mahomedan hiba in Section 129; oral hiba remains valid where the three classical elements (declaration, acceptance, delivery) are present.

S Sarojini Amma v Velayudhan Pillai Sreekumar (2018) 17 SCC 313 — a gift must be unconditional and in praesenti; a deed described as “gift” that takes effect only after the donor’s death is in truth a will.

Madhukar Sagun Karpe v Institute of Public Assistance AIR 1998 Bom 201 — on Section 128 universal donee; the donee succeeds to the donor’s liabilities to the extent of the property received. Treated in the article on onerous gifts and the universal donee.

Actionable claims — Sections 130 to 137

Ananda Behera v State of Orissa AIR 1956 SC 17 — the boundary between an actionable claim and a benefit arising from immovable property; a right to enter and remove fish is not an actionable claim. Treated in the article on the transfer of actionable claims.

Sunrise Associates v Government of NCT of Delhi (2006) 5 SCC 603 — the Supreme Court held that the chance of winning a lottery ticket is an actionable claim; the case examines the doctrinal scope of Section 3.

Jugalkishore Saraf v Raw Cotton Co Ltd AIR 1955 SC 376 — an assignee of an actionable claim is bound by all equities to which the assignor was subject; the proposition is the foundation of the modern law on assignment.

Estoppel and ostensible owner — Sections 41 and 43

Ramcoomar Koondoo v John and Maria McQueen (1872) 11 Beng LR 46 (PC) — the foundational Privy Council case on benami transactions and ostensible ownership, the historical anchor of Section 41. Treated in the article on transfer by ostensible owner.

Jayadayal Poddar v Bibi Hazra AIR 1974 SC 171 — the modern Supreme Court restatement of the indicia of ostensible ownership: source of money, custody of title deed, motive, position of the parties and conduct.

R Suresh Chandra v Vadnere Chandra Soft Drinks (P) Ltd (2009) 12 SCC 458 — on the requirement of bona fide purchase for value without notice and the limits of Section 41 protection.

Jumma Masjid v Kodimaniandra Deviah AIR 1962 SC 847 — the leading Supreme Court authority on Section 43 (feeding the grant by estoppel), held to apply to a transferee for consideration who acquires the property with knowledge of the transferor’s want of title at the date of the transfer; the decision is treated in the article on the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel.

How to cite a TPA case in a judiciary answer

The examiner expects three things in citation form: case name in italics, citation in the year-volume-reporter-page format, and one-sentence statement of the proposition.

Supreme Court. The standard form is Case Name AIR YYYY SC Page or Case Name (YYYY) Volume SCC Page. Where both are available, either is acceptable; SCC is preferred for post-1969 decisions because of its annotated commentary. Example: Bhawanji Lakhamshi v Himatlal Jamnadas Dani AIR 1972 SC 819 or (1972) 1 SCC 388.

Privy Council. The form is Case Name ILR Year Volume High-Court-Series Page (Privy Council appeal), with the IA citation appended where possible: Faiyaz Husain Khan v Prag Narain (1907) ILR 29 All 339 / 34 IA 102. The IA reference is the canonical Privy Council citation; the ILR reference is the original-court reference from which the appeal arose.

High Court. The form is Case Name AIR Year High-Court Page or Case Name (Year) Volume HC-Reporter Page. Example: Pratap Chand Gupta v Chairman Hindi Sahitya Sammelan AIR 1989 All 1.

House of Lords / King’s Bench. Pre-1949 English decisions are still cited in TPA examinations because Indian doctrine grew from English equity. The form is Case Name (Year) Volume Reporter Page. Example: Bellamy v Sabine (1857) 1 De G & J 566.

The examiner does not penalise an alternative citation if it is correct; the citation must be precise and the case name must be spelt exactly. The proposition that follows the citation must be the one the case decides — not a wider proposition for which the case is sometimes loosely cited in headnote summaries.

Conclusion — the canon in eight cases

If only eight cases were available for revision, the following list captures the spine of the entire Act.

1. Tagore v Tagore (1872) 9 Beng LR 377 (PC) — transfer to unborn person.
2. Anand Behera v State of Orissa AIR 1956 SC 17 — benefit arising from land; profit a prendre.
3. Rajes Kanta Roy v Santi Debi AIR 1957 SC 255 — spes successionis; vested versus contingent.
4. Associated Hotels of India v R N Kapoor AIR 1959 SC 1262 — lease versus licence.
5. Faiyaz Husain Khan v Prag Narain (1907) 34 IA 102 — lis pendens.
6. Mina Kumari v Bijoy Singh (1916) 44 IA 72 — sham versus fraudulent transfer.
7. V Dhanapal Chettiar v Yesodai Ammal AIR 1979 SC 1745 — rent control overlay on Section 106.
8. Suraj Lamp & Industries v State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656 — sale must be by registered instrument.

Memorise these eight in name, citation and one-sentence ratio. The remaining cases in this digest are derived applications of the same principles.

One last note on revision strategy. The judiciary mains-paper examiner is increasingly inclined to set hybrid questions that span more than one section — for instance, a fact pattern that turns at once on Section 53A part performance and Section 41 ostensible ownership, or on Section 52 lis pendens and Section 53 fraudulent transfers. The case canon is the surest way of tracking these intersections. Suraj Lamp bears not only on Section 54 but also on Section 17 of the Registration Act and on the constitutional demarcation of land registration as a state subject. Faiyaz Husain Khan bears not only on Section 52 but on the operation of execution proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure. Jumma Masjid bears on both Section 43 and Section 6(a). Train the recall to navigate these intersections, and the eight-case spine will branch into the full doctrinal field of the Act.

The case names are exactly as they appear in the official reports; the volume and page numbers in the standard reporters — AIR, SCC, IA, ILR, DeG&J, Cal LR — are the canonical citations. Where two reporters report the same decision, both citations are acceptable, but the candidate must be consistent within an answer. Where the year of decision differs from the year of report, prefer the year of report; that is the convention in the All India Reporter.

A working candidate’s notebook for the Act, built from this digest, will run to roughly two hundred entries: thirty Privy Council decisions, one hundred and twenty Supreme Court decisions, and the balance from the High Courts. The eight cases above are the spine; the cases under each H2 above are the muscles; the further references in the standard reporters are the connective tissue. With the spine and the muscles, the candidate has enough to write the answer.