SC: No body can be permitted to take the benefits of his own wrong.

Today, i.e. on 8th February 2019, in the matter of Tanu Ram Bora v. Promod Ch. Das (D) through Lrs. & Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced that  where at the time of transfer, the vendor/transferor might have a defective title or have no title and/or no right or interest, however subsequently the transferor acquires the right, title or interest and the contract of transfer subsists, in that case the transferor cannot be permitted to challenge the transfer and/or the transferor has no option to raise the dispute in making the transfer and such a transfer is valid at the option of the transferee.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that;

Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operates on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists. .(Para 7.4)

Thus, if at the time of transfer, the vendor/transferor might have a defective title or have no title and/or no right or interest, however subsequently the transferor acquires the right, title or interest and the contract of transfer subsists, in that case at the option of the transferee, such a transfer is valid. In such a situation, the transferor cannot be permitted to challenge the transfer and/or the transferor has no option to raise the dispute in making the transfer.(Para 7.4)

The intention and objects behind Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act seems to be based on the principle of estoppel as well as the equity. The intention and objects seems to be that after procuring the money (sale consideration) and transferring the land, thereafter the transferor is estopped from saying that though he has sold/transferred the property/land on payment of sale consideration, still the transfer is not binding to him. That is why Section 43 of the T.P. Act gives an option to the transferee and not the transferor. The intention of Section 43 of the Act seems to be that no body can be permitted to take the benefits of his own wrong. (Para 7.5)

Copy of judgement: Judgement_08-Feb-2019

-Tushar Kaushik

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *