PROPERTY LAW

DEFINITION OF PROPERTY

The word “property” is derived from the Latin word proprietary and the French equivalent
properties, which means a thing owned. The concept of property and ownership are very
similar to each other. However, there is a fine line that distinguishes the two terms. It will not
be incorrect to state that humans have been aware of their rights to possess what they
rightfully own for long. The term property has been widely interpreted by various jurists such
as Salmond, Bentham and Austin. Close observation of the definitions given by them will
help us understand the concept in a better manner.

Eminent jurist Salmond while defining the term property, observed that the term might be
understood in one of the three senses mentioned below:

1) The term property includes all the legal rights of a person. That is to say that it
includes complete ownership of a man on material as well as incorporeal things.
2) The term includes not a man’s personal rights, but only his proprietary rights.
3) The term includes the rights of ownership in material things such as building etc.
According to another jurist, Bentham, the term property includes ownership of
material objects alone. He has, in a way, interpreted the term in a narrow sense.
According to Austin, Property denotes the greatest right of enjoyment known to the
law, including servitudes. The Property includes both proprietaries as well as the
personal rights of a man.

N Ramaiah v Nagaraj S, AIR 2001 Kant 395

Facts:
• A died, leaving behind wife (W) and his brother's son (N). His property was supposed to go
to W, but N came up with another will, contesting that all the property was meant to be
inherited by him.
• While the suit was pending, N obtained an injunction against W, which stopped her from
alienating or transferring the property.
• W then died, leaving, by way of her will, the contested property to her brother (B). B then
asked to replace her in the civil suit.
• Issue: Was this transfer even valid? Or was it not a transfer at all?
• Held: It was not a transfer U/S 5. Therefore, B (legatee) was allowed to pursue the litigation
on behalf of W (testatrix, female of testator).

"…the difference between a transfer and a Will are well recognised. A transfer is a
conveyance of an existing property by one living person to another (that is transfer inter
vivos). On the other hand, a Will does not involve any transfer, nor effects any transfer inter
vivos, but is a legal expression of the wishes and intention of a person in regard to his
properties which he desires to be carried into effect after his death. In other words, a Will
regulates succession and provides for succession as declared by it (testamentary succession)
instead of succession as per personal law (non- testamentary succession). The concept of
transfer by a living person is wholly alien to a Will. When a person makes a Will, he provides
for testamentary succession and does not transfer any property. While a transfer is irrevocable
and comes into effect either immediately or on the happening of a specified contingency, a
Will is revocable and comes into operation only after the death of the testator. Thus, to treat a
devise under a Will, as a transfer of an existing property in future is contrary to all known
principles relating to transfer of property and succession."

Present or Future
• Conveyance of property may be in future but property has to exist in the present. Ditcham v
Miller, AIR 1931 PC 203.
• Eg: Someone can enter into a contract that details future conveyance (transfer of ownership)
of property but the property itself has to be currently in existence. Held in Sumsuddin v
Abdul Husein (1909) 31 Bom 172.

Interpretation of the word Property by the Apex Court of India

The honorable Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v. R.C. Cooper
interpreted the concept of Property in the legal regime. The court, in this case, observed that
the term property includes both corporeal things such as land, furniture and incorporeal things
such as copyrights and patents. The recent trend of the Apex court, however, has changed.
Court has started viewing Property in the light of Article 21 of the Indian constitution as
liberties exist even reference to the Property owned and possessed.

Kinds of properties
Property is basically of two categories : Corporeal Property and Incorporeal Property.
Corporeal Property is visible and tangible, whereas incorporeal Property is not. Moreover,
corporeal Property is the right of ownership in material things, whereas incorporeal Property
is an incorporeal right in rem. Corporeal Property is further categorized into Movable and
Immovable Property. Incorporeal Property is classified into two categories : in re propria and
rights in re aliena or encumbrances.

Corporeal and Incorporeal Property

These are the two categories of properties that exist.
1) Corporeal Property has a tangible existence in the world and is related to material
things such as land, house, ornaments, silver, etc.
2) Incorporeal Property is intangible because it’s existence is neither visible nor tangible.
Right of easement and copyrights are incorporeal Property.

Movable and Immovable Property

All corporeal Property may either be movable or immovable in nature. The basis of this kind
of classification is the portability of the object. The two categories are discussed as follows:
(i) Section 3 of the general clauses act, 1897; Section 2(6) of the Indian Registration Act,
1908 defines the term immovable Property. It includes land, things attached and embedded in
the land.
(ii) On the other, movable Property includes any corporeal property which is not immovable
property. It may include furniture, stationery items, etc. The concept of immovable Property
holds greater importance and has elaborately been dealt with under Indian statutes. The
following mentioned are judicially recognized as immovable Property:
1. Right of way
2. Right to collect the rent of immovable Property
3. Right of ferry
4. mortgagor’s right to redeem the mortgage
5. The interest of the mortgagee in immovable Property
6. Right of fishery
7. Right to collect lac from trees

On the other hand, the following are not judicially recognized as immovable Property:
1. Standing timber
2. Growing crops
3. Grass
4. Royalty
5. A decree of sale or sale of immovable property on a mortgage
6. Right of the purchaser to have land registered in the name
7. Right to recover maintenance allowance even though it is charged through immovable
Property

The above-mentioned lists are not exhaustive and are subject to judicial interpretations from
time to time.

Public Property and Private Property

With reference to the concept of ownership, Property may be classified into public and
private property. The two kinds are discussed below:

(i) Public Property is owned by the public as such in some governmental capacity. In other
words, it is owned by the government and used for the beneficial use of the public in general.
A park or a government hospital is a public property.
(ii) Private Property is that Property which is owned by a particular individual or some other
private person. A residential house of a citizen may be his private property.

Real and Personal Property

This distinction between real and personal Property basically originated from Roman law,
and it still exists in England. The two categories of Property are discussed below:
(i) Real Property means all rights over land recognized by law.
(ii) Personal Property means all other proprietary rights, whether they are right in rem or in
personam.
Right in re aliena and Right in re propria
Right in re aliena are also sometimes referred to as encumbrances. These are the rights of a
specific user. These prevent the owner from exercising some definite right in reference to his
Property. Lease, security and trust may be included under this category. Right in re propria
are immaterial forms of Property. These are a product of human skill and labour. Patents,
copyrights and commercial goodwill may be included under this category.

Intellectual Property
Intellectual Property is, in simpler terms, creation of intellect or wisdom or of the human
mind. It is related to intellectual innovation and innovation in the literary, scientific and
artistic fields. Nations around the world are making efforts toward protecting intellectual
property. One major reason is to recognize by way of statute, the economic rights of creators
of these intellectual properties. Another reason is the urge to promote creativity amongst the
masses which will, in the long run, contribute towards an environment comprising of only
fair trade practices. The law related to intellectual Property aims at protecting the people who
create and own the intellectual goods and services by granting them certain time-limited
rights to control the use made of those productions. Those rights do not apply to the physical
object in which the creation may be embodied but instead to the intellectual creation as such.

Kinds of Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property may be classified into various categories. However, a few of the most
widely utilized and owned intellectual properties have been discussed below:

1. Patent
A patent is a kind of Property that has intellectual worth attached to it. It is an exclusive right
granted for an invention which is a product which is a result of a person’s ability to of doing
something or offers a new technological solution to a problem. In order to obtain a patent, it
is necessary that the technological information must be disclosed to the public in a patent
application. A patent so obtained remains in force for twenty years.

2. Trademark
Another widely popular form of intellectual Property is a trademark. Trademark is a sign
capable of distinguishing goods and services of one enterprise from another. These are
basically a means to protect the unique identity of renowned brands. It enables a customer to
recognize the brand or the product instantly without being misled. An example of a trademark
would be the logos or slogans used by brands to make their products uniquely identifiable.

3. Copyright
Copyright is available to the creators of literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, producer of
cinematograph acts or sound recording. It determines whether and in what conditions the
original work may be used by persons other than the owner of the unique intellectual
property.
Almost every product has copyright. These include the visible symbols on the product
packaging and label etc. Copyrights protect original creative work has been written down on
a piece of paper, saved on electronic storage hard drive device or preserved in some other
tangible format.

4. Geographical Indicators (gi)

It is an indicator used on products having a specific geographical origin and possess qualities
that exist due to their basic origin. The sign must identify a product as originating in a given
place, and the quality, characteristics or reputation should be due to the place of origin.
Recently, Rasgulla from Orissa and Kadaknath chicken from Madhya Pradesh has been
granted the geographical indication tag in India.

5. Industrial Design
Industrial design is related to the products which are a part of the industrial set up. It refers to
the shape, configuration, colour or pattern which may be an ornamental or aesthetic aspect of
a product. The owners of a registered industrial design have a right to prevent third parties
from making, selling, importing articles bearing a design which is a copy. Thereby any person
using someone else’s industrial design may be liable to pay damages to the owner of the
industrial design.

6. Trade Secret
Trade secret in simpler terms implies the strategy adopted by the owner of the business. It
may be any confidential business information which provides an organization with a
complete edge in the world market of the respective product it deals with. A trade secret is an
initial step for an investor. It is essential that the idea or formula behind the unique trade
opportunity remains secretive. Any person or organization indulging in unauthorized use of
trade secrets is regarded to be guilty of unfair trade practice. For example, the recipe of any
popular noodles brand may be considered as a trade secret of that brand.

7. Commercial Goodwill
Commercial goodwill is a prominent form of incorporeal right. The goodwill of a commercial
business is a valuable right acquired by the owner by his labour and skill. The owner has the
exclusive right of use and profit from the business and anyone who seeks to make use of it by
falsely representing to the public that he is himself carrying on the business in question shall
be violating this right.
DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE

 Equity looks on that as done which ought to have been done/ equity regards as done
what should have been done"
 A result of the Statute of Frauds in England, which stated that no action could be
brought before a court involving a transfer of land unless the contract for the transfer
was in writing and signed by the parties. This was done to reduce chances of fake oral
evidence but caused hardship to people.
 A could orally sell land X to B and receive money for it. But A could refuse to allow
B to move in, or, if B had already moved in, forcibly evict B, all on the basis that
there had been no written contract.

Essentials Under Indian Law

• There is contract for the transfer of an immovable property (the section does not apply to
movable property; Hammed v Jayabharat Credit & Investment Co. Ltd, AIR 1986 Ker
206)
• Contract is in writing and executed (signed)
• Consideration is involved
• The transferee has either performed his part or willing to perform the same
• The transferee:
• takes the possession of the property (or any part thereof) under this contract, or
• being in already possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and
has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and
• Then, notwithstanding that the contract, though required to be registered has not been
registered, or, where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been
completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force.

Statute Cannot Be Allowed to Be Made an Instrument of Fraud

• The above principle of equity helped formulate the doctrine of Part Performance in the UK.
• In the prior example, as long as B had performed or was willing to perform his part of the
bargain, he would be entitled to get possession of the land.
• If he already had possession, he could remain in possession if A attempted to evict him.
• Even if he did not already have possession, he could still use this principle to enforce his
right to possession.
• Thus, this was a wide principle, acting as both a sword (tool of offence, from which a cause
of action could arise) and a shield (tool of defence, which would help safeguard the
defendant's right in a suit against him).
• However, it remained a tool of discretion of the judge, just like most judgments involving
specific performance.

Maddison V Alderson, Hl 1883

• A housekeeper had not been given any wages and wished to leave the service of her
employer.
• Employer asked her to stay, promising her a lifetime interest in an estate so long as she
worked for him until his death.
• Upon this oral promise, she continued to work for him for many years.
• Before his death, he wrote and signed a will, leaving a life interest in the property to her.
• However, the will was not attested, so she had to rely on the oral promise he made to her,
declaring it to be an oral contract, which was not actually enforceable thanks to the Statute of
Frauds.
• Initially, the court ruled in favour of the dead man's heir, not the housekeeper.
• Said that there was no contract between the parties, as he had merely made a promise
• Upon appeal to the House of Lords,the doctrine of part performance was applied and
Maddison got her due.
• The Court said that there was indeed a contract, even if it was simply oral, and Maddison
had fulfilled her end by continuing to work for him instead of leaving, when he offered her
the estate.
• By continuing to work for him, she provided consideration and turned his promise from a
mere promise into an agreement.

'….It is now finally settled that the true construction of the Statute of Frauds is not to render
the contracts within it void, still less illegal but is to render the kind of evidence required
indispensable when it is sought to enforce the contract...'
‘...In a suit founded on such part performance, the defendant is really ‘charged’ upon the
equities resulting from the acts done in execution of the contract, and not (within the meaning
of the statute) upon the contract itself. If such equities were excluded, injustice of a kind
which the statute cannot be thought to have had in contemplation would follow. The matter
has advanced beyond the stage of contract; and the equities which arise out of the stage which
it has reached cannot be administered unless the contract is regarded.’

Mohomed Musa V Ashok Kumar Ganguli, Pc 1914

• Long term property dispute between a lady (Khodajanessa) and her attempt to redeem from
mortgage a land that had been given to her as dower by her husband from the three gentlemen
to whom the land had been mortgaged.
• At some point, they came to an oral compromise (razinama), dividing the land between
Khodajanessa and the other three people, and the suit was dropped
• Khodajanessa herself, when mortgaging her share of the land a second time, detailed the
razinama and mortgaged only her specific share as per the agreement.
• Her heirs later attempted to redeem the rest of the property from the other party.
• The Court held that, just because the agreement was not put in writing does not mean that
the agreement did not exist and was not acted upon.
• It also mentioned Maddison v Alderson and declared that the law of India was not
incompatible with the law of equity in the UK, especially since back then, when the razinama
had been executed, the TPA had not been enacted.
• This case, therefore, made part performance a part of Indian law.
• (However, some confusion remained and eventually, the legislature itself amended the law
of the land to introduce Section 53A.)

Arif V Jadunath- The Overturning Of Mahomed Musa

In Arif v Jadunath (1928 PC), the Privy Council went back on its previous ruling of
wholeheartedly incorporating the law of part performance in India, on the basis that when the
transfer in the previous case was effected, a written conveyance was not required as the TPA
had not been enacted. This case involved a verbal agreement of 'permanent lease' between the
plaintiff and defendant in 1913, but in 1925 the plaintiff attempted to eject the defendant. The
Court decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Khan Bahadur Mian Pir Bux V Sardar Mahomed Tahar (1934 Pc)
"The English doctrine of part performance, as Lord Russell of Killowen explained in Ariff's
case, is not available in India by way of defence to an action of ejectment (apart from the
subsequent statutory alteration of the law mentioned hereafter). The fact that the plaintiff has
agreed to, sell the land in question to the defendant is not rendered an effective defence by
reason of the plaintiff having in part performance of the agreement permitted the defendant to
take possession ...
The result is that under the law applicable to the present case, [an] averment of the existence
of a contract of sale, whether with or without an averment of possession following upon the
contract, is not relevant defence to an action of ejectment in India."

Section 53a – Result Of A Special Committee Constituted In 1927

Nature Of Right Available Under Section 53a

• Passive equity, no right of action.
• Part Performance can only be invoked as a defence, not as offence.
• No Title or interest in the property: This sec imposes the statutory bar on the Transferor i.e.
(he cannot dispossess transferee ) but does not confer any title on the transferee. [Held in
Sitaram Rao v Bibbhushan Pardhan,AIR 1978 Ori 222].
• The transferee is not entitled to restrain the transferor from transferring the property to any
other person.
• The transferee cannot invoke this defence against a transferee who paid consideration and
did not have notice of the option of part performance.
• If the transferee wanted to officially gain a title in the property, they would have to invoke
Specific Relief Act.

Sec 10 Of the Specific Relief Act

Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the specific performance of any contract may,
in the discretion of the court, be enforced---
(a)when there exists no standard for ascertaining actual damage caused by the non-
performance of the act agreed to be done; or
(b) when the act agreed to be done is such that compensation in money for its non-
performance would not afford adequate relief
[Note: This provision is time sensitive and may become barred by the Limitation Act upon
the expiry of 3 years, as per Section 54]

Maneklal Mansukhbhai V Hormusji Jamshedji Ginwalla And Sons, 1950 Scr 75

A lease agreement was entered into by the government of Gujarat, granting to the defendant
the right to take possession and begin factory operations. A formal deed was drawn up, but
not executed and registered, so the only 'evidence' as such were all the signed letters between
the
parties.
The rent was paid by lessee, and accepted by the lessor, for several years.
The Supreme Court held that sec 53 A could apply to protect the tenant from the ejectment.
DOCTRINES OF ESTOPPEL AND LIS PENDENS

• Promissory Estoppel– can be used only as a shield, not a sword (i.e., only in defence)
• Proprietary Estoppel– can be used as a sword and a shield
• Provided in Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act (all though it is not defined there).

The definition is given in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
• 115 Estoppel — When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally
caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief,
neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself
and such person or his representative,to deny the truth of that thing.
• Illustration: A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and
thereby induces B to buy and pay for it. The land afterwards becomes the property of A, and
A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title. He
must not be allowed to prove his want of title.

The elements are:

• A makes an unequivocal promise to B without any consideration
• B acts upon that promise (but not necessarily in detriment)
• If A were to go back on that promise, it would result in inequity.

Central London Property Trust V High Trees House [1947] Kb 130 High Court
High Trees (defendant) leased a block of flats from Central London Property Trust (plaintiff)
at a ground rent of £2,500. It was a new block of flats at the time the lease was taken out in
1937. The defendant had difficulty in getting tenants for all the flats and the ground rent left
High Trees with no profit. In 1940 many of the flats were still unoccupied and with the
conditions of the war prevailing, it did not look as if there was to be any change to this
situation in the near future. CLP agreed to reduce the rent to £1,250 during the war years. The
agreement was put in writing and High Trees paid the reduced rent from 1941. When the war
was over the flats became fully occupied and the claimant sought to return to the originally
agreed rent.

Held: The rent would be returned to the originally agreed price for the future only. The
plaintiff could not claim back the arrears accrued during the war years. This case, decided by
Denning J, established concretely the doctrine of promissory estoppel for the first time.
Promissory estoppel prevented CLP going back on their promise to accept a lower rent
despite the fact that the promise was unsupported by consideration. Denning J "In my
opinion, the time has now come for the validity of such a promise to be recognised. The
logical consequence, no doubt is that a promise to accept a smaller sum in discharge of a
larger sum, if acted upon, is binding notwithstanding the absence of consideration…"

Proprietary Estoppel
• Almost a subset of Promissory Estoppel but more powerful. (Why?)
• Used more frequently in disputes relating to transfer of immovable property (especially
land).
Elements:
• Clear assurance/promise by X that Y will acquire a right over property.
• Y reasonably relies on X’s promise.
• Y acts to their detriment on the basis of that assurance/promise. (IMP)
• It would cause injustice for X to go back on their promise.

Crabb V. Arun District Council [1975] Ewca Civ 7

• The claimant was assured that his local council would build a right of way to his land, such
that the land could be partitioned and sold off separately without leaving one part of the land
landlocked.
• To confirm their intentions, the council built a fence with a gap for the assured right of way.
• The claimant relied on this assurance to sell of part of his land, leaving his own landlocked.
• The council then filled in the gap, and demanded £3000 for a right of way to be built.
• The council was estopped from blocking the right of way as, by selling off his land, the
plaintiff had acted to his detriment on their unambiguous assurance.

Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills V State Of Up, 1979 Air 621

• Decisive case, applied both promissory and proprietary estoppel against the Government.
(Technically, the court asserted that the two forms of estoppel were one and the same).
• Relied upon,quite heavily,the Central London PropertiesTrust v HighTrees case.
• Ensured that these equity doctrines are now a part of Indian law.
• Asserted that the plaintiff can use estoppel under equity as not just a defence but also to
create a cause of action.

Representation
• There needs to be a representation by the transferor first.
• "fraudulently" was added in 1929 after arguments arose in court that "erroneously" requires
intention, thereby distinguishing between the two.
• The Madras HC had ruled that the erroneous misrepresentation did not have to be
"intentional" in 1915 already, in the case of Hattikudur v Andar (1915) 28 Mad LJ 44.
• No longer a point of contention.
• The word representation means that the transferee should have acted on the representation,
held in Mulraj v Indar Singh, (1926) ILR All 150 and reaffirmed in other judgments.

Transferee's Role
Does the transferee's knowledge matter?
• Under Common Law, "no estoppel can arise where the true position is apparent in the
document itself". (Halsbury's Laws of England, as quoted in Mulla.)
• In Mulraj v. Indar Singh, the Court said that a "false statement known to be so can
certainly not be fraudulent, and it is difficult to describe it even as an erroneous
representation.
• (This position was later overturned in a later case of Parma Nand v. Champa Lal.) (But this
case was in direct contradiction to cases by other HCs, such as Pandiri Bangaram v.
Karumoory (1911) ILR 34 Mad 159. And was later overturned in the case of Jumma Masjid
Mercara)

Other Points
• The transferee has to “choose” to exercise this right. The property does not transfer
automatically. Held in, Krishnabadhan v Kanailal AIR 1973 Cal 422.
• Consideration is important. (Thus, the requirements are stricter than that of estoppel under
equity and even section 115 of Indian Evidence Act.)
• It was held to not apply to a transaction of gift, in Ganga Baksh v. Madho Singh (1955)
ILR 1 All 587.
• The principles of contract law need to be complied with – the contract was made by a
person who was comepetent to contract, and the contract would be subsisting at the time
when a claim for recovery of the property is made. Held in Sheo Ram v. Ganesh Shanker
(1954) All LJ 1954.
• “any interests which the transferor may acquire in such property” would mean that the
transferor does not have to possess the exact entirety of the interest in the property. It could
include a limited interest.
• Best illustrated by the case of Gurmail Singh v Udham KaurAIR 1999 P&H 300.
Parties: A (Haricharan Singh, owner of some property), B (Udham Kaur, his wife), C (Hardev
Singh, their son), and X (Gurmail Singh, the transferee). In lieu of maintenance, A had
transferred some properties to B.
B filed a case in court asking to be declared the true owner, which the court agreed to. While
this was going on, A sold his property to X, representing it as his own. X believed him. Later,
B died, leaving half her property to A and half to their son, C. X moved the court and asked
that A’s share be transferred to him now that A had acquired an interest in the property (even
if it was only half the share).
• X won in Court.
• In the appeal, Hardev Singh v Gurmail Singh (2007), the decision was upheld.

Meaning Of Lis Pendens

• Ut lite pendent nihil innovetur- Latin for “Nothing should be changed during litigation”
• Lis – Lawsuit
• Pendens – Pending
• Used in respect of immovable property
• Originally a common law doctrine
• Incorporated in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 (TPA)
Gurmail Singh V Udham Kaur
• Haricharan Singh – has some properties/ Wife – Udham Kaur/ Son – Hardev Singh
• Udham Kaur wants maintenance
• Instead of paying her maintenance, Husband transfers some property to her to live in
• Udham takes Haricharan to court and asks to be declared the full owner of the property (not
just possessor)
• Court says no, she appeals, and the appellate court declares that Udham is truly the real
owner of the property
• While all this is happening, Haricharan sells the property to Gurmail Singh
• It regarded specific immovable property–Yes, Udham wanted to be declared owner of
certain specific property that he had transferred to her.
• A party transferred the property to someone else – Yes, Haricharan sold the property to
Gurmail
• So as to affect the rights of any other party to the suit under any decree or order – Yes,
Udham was declared the owner of the property but she was negatively affected by the transfer
during the suit’s pendency

Why Is Lis Pendensa Necessity?

Bellamy v Sabine (1857) 1 Dec. & 566

It is, as I think, a doctrine common to the Courts both of law and Equity and rests as I
apprehend, on the foundation that it would plainly be impossible that any action or suit could
be brought to a successful termination, if alienations pendent lite were permitted to prevail.
The plaintiff would be liable in every case to be defeated by the defendants alienating before
the judgment or decree, and would be driven to commence his proceedings de novo, subject
again to be defeated by the same course of proceedings.

Imp because quoted in the earliest landmark case of lis pendens, Faiyaz Husain Khan v
Munsiff Prag Narain (1907) ILR 29All 389, which solidified the concept in Indian law.

System Of “Constructive Notice”

• Due to this element of “necessity” and “expediency”, India does not require a
registration/notice of Lis Pendens.
• A and B are fighting over some farmland.
• During the pendency, B sells the farmland to C.
• C has no way of knowing about the suit.
• C bought it in good faith without notice, and yet it is immaterial. C’s right will remain
subservient (inferior) to those of A, if A wins the suit.
• This is called the system of “constructive notice”. Just the fact that the suit has been
instituted means people are expected to have “notice”
Padmaj v Erratil Sajeev, AIR 2007 (NOC) 70 Ker
• A and B had entered into a sale agreement but A had not transferred ownership and
possession to B.
• B instituted a suit against A.
• In the meantime, A sold it to C.
• C argued that she was the bona fide purchaser for value so the decree was not operable
against her and should not be executed.
• Court held: Not permissible.
TRANSFER BY LIMITED OWNER AND OSTENSIBLE OWNERSHIP

Transfer by person authorised only under particular circumstances to transfer – s 38

• Limited power of alienation (The person does not have absolute right of alienation, unlike
owner)
• Depends on circumstances (which may vary from case to case)
• Transferee has to take reasonable care (be vigilant), be honest and ensure that:
• The need for transfer existed, or
• She made proper and reasonable enquiries as to the competence of the transferor

• Executor of a Minor's Estate. Jugmohundas v Pallonjee (1898) ILR 22 Bom 1;

Kherodemoney v Doorgamoney (1879) ILR 4 Cal 455; Sarat Chandra v Bhupendra Nath
(1898) ILR 25 Cal 103; Amulya v Kalidas (1905) ILR 32 Cal 861. (Source: Poonam Pradhan
Saxena).
• However, the executor/guardian cannot do the following without prior permission of the
court: lease out for more than 5 years, sell, gift, exchange, mortgage

Debi ProsadChowdhury vs Golap Bhagat(1913) ILR 40 Cal 421

Widow having limited rights (such as lifetime interest): In this case, the reversionary heir
consented to the transfer so it was not even necessary to demonstrate legal necessity and the
transferee bought it bona fide.

S 41: transfer by ostensible ownership

Where, with the consent, express or implied, of the persons interested in immoveable
property, a person is the ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for
consideration, the transfer shall not be voidable on the ground that the transferor was not
authorised to make it: provided that the transferee, after taking reasonable care to ascertain
that the transferor had power to make the transfer, has acted in good faith.

Jaydayal V. Bibi Hazra, 1974 S.C. 171

The Supreme Court decided that whether a person is an ostensible owner is a subjective
question to be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances
Court observed that following considerations must be taken into account while deciding the
owner is ostensible or not
• Source of the purchase – money i .e . who paid the price?
• Nature of possession after the purchase i .e . who had the possession?
• Motive for Benami transaction i .e . why the property was purchased in the name of the
other person?
• Relationship between the parties i .e ., whether the real owner and the ostensible owner
were related to each other or were strangers or friends?
• Conduct of the parties in dealing with the property i .e ., who used to take care of, and
exercise control over, the property?
• Custody of the title deeds .
• The burden of proof that a transaction is benami and that the transferor is an ostensible
owner lies on the person who claims that he is the real owner.

Benami transaction (Genuine)

• A pays for X property.
• The transferee/owner however is named to be someone else (say, B).
• Here, B is known as the Benamidar.
• The property is for A's benefit.
• Helps evade tax laws.

Benami transaction (fictitious)

• A transfers property X to B.
• B does not exist.
• Not applicable to S 41 of TPA.
• Also helps evade tax laws (presumably).
• Here also, B is the benamidar.

Prohibition Of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988

• Defines benami transactions [2(9)] and benami property [2(8)]
• Cerrtain exceptions provided: S 2(9)
• S 2(10): Benamidar = ostensible owner
• S 2(12): Beneficial owner = real owner
• Bans benami transactions (S 3)
• Prohibits beneficial owner from recovering benami property (S4)
• Any benami property will be confiscated by the government (S 5)
• Benamidar cannot re-transfer property to ben. owner (S 6) Essentially invalidates S 41 as no
one can claim under it or use it as a defence. Held in: Mithelesh Kumari v Prem Behari
Khare, AIR 1989 SC 1247.

When 41 apply
• Cases where property was bought for the benefit of, and in the name of, wife/unmarried
daughter. Held in: Nand Kishore Mehra vs Sushila Mehra, AIR 1995 SC 130.
• Other cases as per the exception provided in Section 2(9)(A).
• NOTE: In Aug 2022, in Union of India v Ganpati Dealcom , S 3(2) was held to be
manifestly arbitrary and was struck down by the Supreme Court.
TRANSFERABLE PROPERTY, PRINCIPLE, AND ACCESSORY RIGHTS

Transferable property refers to property that can legally be transferred from one person to
another. The principle rights and accessory rights associated with property determine what
can be transferred and under what conditions. Understanding these concepts is crucial in
Indian property law, governed primarily by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Transferable Property is any property, whether movable or immovable, that can be legally
transferred from one party (transferor) to another (transferee). The Transfer of Property Act,
1882, primarily deals with the transfer of immovable property.

1.2. Types of Transferable Property

 Movable Property: Includes items that can be physically moved from one place to
another, such as cars, jewelry, and goods.
 Immovable Property: Refers to property that cannot be moved, such as land,
buildings, and permanent fixtures attached to land.

1.3. Conditions for Transferability

 Lawful Ownership: The transferor must have the legal right or title to transfer the
property.
 Competence of Parties: Both the transferor and transferee must be competent to
contract, meaning they must be of legal age, sound mind, and not disqualified by any
law.
 Consideration: In most cases, the transfer must involve consideration, although
exceptions exist (e.g., gifts).
 No Restriction by Law: Certain properties, such as public property or property with
legal restrictions (e.g., property owned by minors or governed by religious or
charitable trusts), may not be transferable.

1.4. Non-Transferable Property

 Spes Successionis (Chance of Succession): The chance of an heir succeeding to an

estate is not transferable.
 Right of Re-Entry: The right of a landlord to re-enter leased property under certain
conditions is non-transferable.
 Right to Sue: A mere right to sue for compensation or damages cannot be transferred.
 Public Office: The emoluments attached to a public office are non-transferable.

Case Law Example:

Maharaja of Benaras v. Har Narain Singh (1898)

o Facts: The case involved the transfer of property in which the chance of succession
was the main issue.
o Judgment: The Privy Council held that the transfer of "spes successionis" (chance of
succeeding to an estate) is void under Indian law.
 o Significance: This case clarifies the non-transferability of the mere chance of
succession.

2. Principal Rights

Principle Rights refer to the primary rights associated with property ownership, including
the rights to use, enjoy, and dispose of the property.

2.2. Examples of Principle Rights

 Right to Ownership: The right to hold legal title to the property and exercise control
over it.
 Right to Possession: The right to physically occupy and use the property.
 Right to Enjoyment: The right to enjoy the benefits and profits arising from the
property (e.g., rent, crops).
 Right to Transfer: The right to sell, gift, mortgage, lease, or otherwise transfer the
property.
 Right to Exclude Others: The right to exclude others from interfering with the
property.

Case Law Example:

 K.J. Nathan v. S.V. Maruthi Rao (1965)

o Facts: The case dealt with the right of a property owner to transfer ownership despite
claims from another party.
o Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the right of the owner to transfer property,
emphasizing the principle right of transfer associated with ownership.
o Significance: Reinforced the importance of principle rights in property law.

3. Accessory Rights

Accessory Rights are secondary rights that accompany the principal property rights. These
rights are often tied to the principal right and cannot exist independently.

3.2. Examples of Accessory Rights

 Easements: A right that allows the holder to use a portion of another’s property for a
specific purpose, such as a right of way.
 Right to Rents and Profits: The right to collect rent from tenants or profits from the
use of property.
 Right of Redemption (Mortgage): The right of a mortgagor to reclaim property by
paying off the mortgage debt.
  Right to Accretion: The right to natural additions to property, such as the gradual
accumulation of soil along a riverbank.

3.3. Legal Principles Governing Accessory Rights

 Appurtenant Rights: Accessory rights are considered appurtenant, meaning they are
attached to the principal property and typically transfer along with it.
 Extinction of Accessory Rights: These rights typically cease to exist when the
principal right is extinguished (e.g., an easement may end when the dominant
property is sold).

Case Law Example:

 Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar (1974)

o Facts: The case involved a dispute over the right to an easement, an accessory right
linked to the principal property.
o Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the easement, emphasizing that it was an
accessory right attached to the property and could not be separated.
o Significance: This case illustrates the inseparable nature of accessory rights from the
principal property.
RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION AND PERPETUITIES

In Indian property law, the concepts of restraints on alienation and perpetuities are critical
in ensuring the free transfer and reasonable use of property. These doctrines are designed to
balance individual rights to dispose of property with broader social and economic policies
that prevent property from being tied up indefinitely or unjustly restricted.

1. Restraints on Alienation

Restraints on Alienation refer to legal provisions or conditions that restrict or limit the
ability of a property owner to transfer, sell, or otherwise dispose of their property. Alienation
is a fundamental aspect of property ownership, and undue restraints on this right are generally
discouraged.

1.2. Types of Restraints

Absolute Restraints:

o These are conditions that completely prohibit the transfer of property. Under Section
10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any absolute restraint on alienation is void.
The law favors the free transferability of property, and conditions that entirely restrict
alienation are not enforceable.

Bhavani Amma Kanakadevi v CSI Dekshina Kerela Maha Idavaka

Absolute restraint, therefore, refers to a condition that attempts to takes away either totally or
substantially this power of alienation.

Gian Chand v York Exports Ltd

If the condition is such which is impossible to perform, then again this conditional transfer
would be void. If the prospective transferee fails to fulfill this condition upon which the
transfer depends the transfer cannot take place.

Re Elliot Kelly v Elliot

For example, A transfers a field to B, and incorporates a condition in the transfer deed,
that B can sell it to anyone, but will have to pay 90% of the consideration to A’s son. The
terminology used does not indicate an attempt to curtail the power of sale, but the practical
effect would be that B would be substantially deprived of the power to transfer it according to
terms that are beneficial to him. This condition therefore would be repugnant to his power of
alienation, and is therefore, void.

Achammal v Rajamanickam Karthikeyan

A settles some property absolutely in favour of B. B starts paying revenue to the government
after the patta was transferred in his name. A condition in the Will that B is prohibited from
alienating the property would be void and B would be empowered to ignore the condition and
sell the property to whomsoever he likes.

DLF Universal Ltd v Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana
There is no restriction even on assignment or transfer of rights under a sale/purchase
agreement by purchaser to a third party before execution of a conveyance deed in respect of
any immovable property.

Restraints for a Particular Time

Loknath Khound v Gunaram Kalita

A sells his house to B for five lakh rupees, with a condition that B should not sell it for five
years. Within this period of five years, A would arrange the money and would have an option
to repurchase it for 6 lakh rupees. If he is unable to exercise this option of repurchase within
five years, B would be at liberty to sell it to anyone. This condition is with respect to both the
time as well as a person, but would be valid as it is in the nature of a partial restraint and is
for the personal benefit of the transferor but if in accordance with the condition the direction
is simply that B should not sell the property for five years without any right of pre-emption or
during the lifetime of A, or that of his wife, such conditions would be void.

Restraints with Respect to Purposes or Use of Property

Saraju Bala v Jyotirmoyee

Therefore, conditions that the property should be sold for a religious purpose, or for any other
specific purpose such as construction of educational institution only would be void as being
repugnant to the right of alienation.

Gomti Singh v Anari Kaur

Section 10 applies only to transfers made by the act of the parties and does not apply to a sale
under the Companies Act, 1956, nor to transfers by operation of law taking effect in
invitum at a sale in execution of a decree.

Partial Restraints:

o Partial restraints are restrictions that limit but do not entirely prohibit the transfer of
property. These can be valid if they are reasonable and not contrary to public policy.
Examples include:
 Requiring the property to be offered to a specific person before others.
 Limiting the transfer to a particular period.

1.3. Legal Provisions

 Section 10, Transfer of Property Act, 1882:

o This section specifically states that a condition that absolutely restrains the transferee
from alienating the interest in property is void, except in the case of a transfer for the
benefit of a woman (not being a Hindu, Mohammedan, or Buddhist) where the
restriction is reasonable and for her benefit.

Case Law Example:

Soni Pramod Kumar v. Soni Ramdatt Rai (1968)
o Facts: The case involved a condition in a gift deed that prohibited the donee from
selling the property.
o Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the condition constituted an absolute restraint
on alienation and was therefore void under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882.
o Significance: This case reinforces the principle that absolute restraints on alienation
are not enforceable in Indian law.

Venkatarammanna v Brammanna
if in a partition a condition is imposed preventing a party from alienating his share, such
condition would be void, e.g., four brothers A, B, C and D, effected a partition of the joint
family property and incorporated a condition in the partition deed, that if anyone of them
remained childless he would not sell his share to anyone but would leave the property for the
surviving brothers. A, who was childless, sold his share and then died. The surviving brothers
filed a suit against the alienee on the ground, that as A was prohibited from selling his share
in case he was issueless, this being a condition to which he had agreed, a sale in
contravention of this condition was void and not binding on them. They pleaded that the
alienee should deliver the possession of the property back to them. The court held, that as this
condition amounted to an absolute restraint on A’s power of alienation it was void and was
not binding on him. The sale in favour of the alienee was perfectly valid.

Khunnilal v Gobinda
The creation of the absolute ownership in each one of the sharers in the properties allotted to
him in the partition is a legal incident of partition. Thus, where it was provided in the
partition deed that after the death of the owner of the properties, his three sons would get the
properties and divide it among themselves, it would mean that they take their respective
shares with full incidents of ownership including a right to alienate it. It does not mean that a
limited estate was created in favour of the owner.

Muthuraman Chettiar v Ponnusami

in a partition by a separate agreement, it was stipulated that if any one of the parties to the
agreement or the heir remained childless, he should not sell or transfer his share by a gift but
the same should, on his death be divided among the rest of the shareholders. The Madras
High Court held that the obvious purpose of these stipulations were to frustrate indefinitely
the right of the alienation which was the legal incident of an absolute estate, in severally
created by the partition in effect to convert the estate in the case of each son-less or issue less
possessor into a mere life enjoyment and would be against the law. This stipulation was
struck down as void.

Malayalandiyil Kayakool Edakozhi Subair v Kayyalakkakath Kunhamina Umma

the issue was whether a clause in the partition deed restricting the right of the party, A in
alienating the plaint schedule properties is invalid under section 10 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882? The court held that even though section 10 is not applicable to the case
of partition, but, the principle underlined is applicable in the case of partition also depending
on the nature of the estate obtained. If the case is of absolute ownership, power of alienation
must go along with it and any restraint of that power will be against the public policy and will
be deemed void. Therefore, A was entitled to the right of alienation taking into account her
absolute ownership over the property in dispute, thus, validating the deed of assignment.
Pritmi Chand v Sunder Das
Partial restraints on power of alienation, even in a partition, are valid. Thus, where the parents
got the property under a partition with a stipulation to enjoy it during their lifetime and sold it
to the respondent, it was held that the sale was valid despite the clause that they had no
absolute right of alienation.

Ratanlal v Ramanuj Das

where the property was given by father to the son under a family arrangement with a
condition that with respect of a portion of it, the son was prohibited from making any
alienation during the life time of the father, it was held to be not an absolute restraint and
therefore was valid and binding on the son.

2. Rule Against Perpetuities

The Rule Against Perpetuities is a legal doctrine that prevents property from being tied up
indefinitely by prohibiting future interests that do not vest within a certain period. The
purpose of this rule is to ensure that property remains transferable and available for use by
living persons, rather than being locked away in legal arrangements that could last
indefinitely.

2.4. Exceptions

 Charitable Trusts: The rule does not apply to interests created for charitable
purposes, allowing such property arrangements to endure beyond the standard period.
 Personal Covenants: Agreements or covenants that do not create property interests
but impose personal obligations (e.g., non-compete clauses in employment contracts)
are generally not subject to this rule.

Case Law Example:

Maddison v. Alderson (1883)

o Facts: Though an English case, its principles are often referenced in Indian
jurisprudence. The case dealt with whether an interest under a will violated the Rule
Against Perpetuities.
o Judgment: The House of Lords held that the interest created was void because it could
potentially vest outside the perpetuity period.
o Significance: This case illustrates the application of the Rule Against Perpetuities and
its importance in ensuring property remains freely transferable.

Anand Rao Vinayak v Administrator-General of Bombay, (1896) ILR 20 Bom 450.

Rule against perpetuity is applicable to both movable and immovable property. Thus, a gift of
property or of a fund to the living son, and after him to his unborn sons, when they attain the
age of 21 years would be hit by rule against perpetuity and would be void.
Ram Newaz v Nankoo
a person A, executed a sale deed of his land, (minus two bighas of it) in 1884 in favour
of B. With respect to two bighas of his land, in the document he provided as follows:

The court held that this was a condition repugnant to the law, and the vendees (B), could not
set up this document as entitling them to possession of the property. The court decided in
favour of the reversioners/heirs. Therefore, whether there is a violation of the rule against
perpetuity or not is to be seen from the terms and conditions as they appear on paper and not
what actually had happened, i.e., in deciding the question of remoteness regard must be had
to the possible and not to actual events.

Transfers Hit by Rule Against Perpetuity

Veerattalingam v Ramesh
bequest provided that the house was to be possessed by the sons and after them the grandsons
without any power of alienations and then to the unborn great-grandsons absolutely, it was
held that the bequest did not offend the rule against perpetuity as the sons and the grandsons
were alive on the date of the bequest.

not to Apply to Personal Agreements

Walsh v Secretary of State for India

It is not concerned with contracts as such, or with contractual rights and obligations as such.
A contract to pay money to a person, his heirs or legal representatives upon a future
contingency, which may happen beyond the period prescribed would be perfectly valid. It is
therefore well established that the rule of perpetuities concerns rights of property only and
does not affect the making of contracts which do not create rights of property.

Right of pre-emption

Ram Baran Prasad v Ram Mohit Hazra

the main issue was whether a pre-emption clause executed by the parties would be hit by the
rule against perpetuities. Here, the property was partitioned between two brothers, A and B,
with a pre-emption clause in each other’s favour, i.e., if any one of them wanted to sell his
share, he had to first offer it to the other brother. Only upon his refusal to buy it could it be
sold to others. A offered to sell his portion to B, which he refused and therefore, he sold it
to C. Similarly, B sold his portion to D. Further, C sold his property to X and D sold it to Y.

Perpetuity and Lease

R Kempraj v Burton Son and Co.
the main issue was, whether an option given to a lessee (tenant) to get the lease, which is
initially for a period of 10 years, renewed after every 10 years is hit by the rule of perpetuity
and is void. Here, a lease was executed by A in favour of B, with a renewal option given
to B after every 10 years in perpetuity. After 10 years B exercised the option for renewal and
upon A’s failure to execute the same, sought the court’s help in issuing a direction to A to
execute a registered lease deed in his favour. A contended that the condition relating to
renewal was hit by rule against perpetuity and therefore, was not binding on him.

The court said: it is well known that the rule against perpetuity is founded on the principle
that the liberty of alienation shall not be exercised to its own destruction and that all
contrivances shall be void which tend to create a perpetuity or place property for ever out of
the reach of the exercise of the power of alienation.

It was held that section 14 is applicable only when there is a transfer of property and the
clause containing renewal after every 10 years can by no means be regarded as creating an
interest in property of the nature that would fall within the ambit of section 14.
TRANSFER TO A CLASS AND DOCTRINE OF ACCELERATION

In Indian property law, the concepts of Transfer to a Class and the Doctrine of Acceleration
play significant roles in determining how property is distributed among beneficiaries,
especially in cases involving future interests or contingent remainders. These doctrines ensure
that property transfers are carried out efficiently and in accordance with the intent of the
grantor or testator.

1. Transfer to a Class

A Transfer to a Class refers to a property transfer where the beneficiaries are identified as a
group or class rather than as specific individuals. The class members are usually described in
terms like "children," "heirs," or "descendants," and the membership of the class may be
determined at a specific time.

1.2. Characteristics of a Class

 Fluctuating Membership: The number of people in the class can change over time,
as members may be added (e.g., by birth) or removed (e.g., by death).
 Equal Shares: Unless specified otherwise, members of the class usually share the
property equally.
 Vesting of Interest: The interest of the class members typically vests when the class
is closed, meaning no more members can join. The class closes either at the death of
the testator (in the case of a will) or at the moment specified in the transfer document.

1.3. Timing of Vesting

 Vesting at Birth: In some cases, the class is defined in a way that each member's
interest vests at birth.
 Vesting on a Specific Event: The interest might vest upon the occurrence of a
specific event, such as the death of the life tenant or when the youngest child reaches
a certain age.
 Class Closing Rule: The class is considered closed either when it becomes
impossible for more members to join (e.g., the death of the testator or the birth of the
last child) or at the time set out in the transfer document.

Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay v. Kripashankar Dayashankar Worah (1971)

o Facts: This case involved the interpretation of a class gift under a will, where the
membership of the class was in question.
o Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the class closes upon the death of the testator,
and only those who qualify as class members at that time are entitled to the property.
o Significance: The case clarified the timing of the vesting of interests in a class and the
rules governing class closing.
Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v Thakurian Bakhraj Kaur
A life interest thus created by a bequest in favour of the widow who was in existence at the
time of the testator’s death is valid, but it is invalid for the rest who were not in existence.

Girjish Dutt v Data Din

For instance, A made a gift of her property to her nephew’s daughter for life and then to her
male descendants if she should have any, absolutely but in case she had no male descendants,
then to her daughters without power of alienation, and if there were no descendants of the
nephew’s daughter then the property was to go to her nephew. When the nephew’s daughter
died without leaving any issue and the nephew claimed the property, the interest created in
favour of the unborn daughters was held as void and the subsequent gift to the nephew also
failed due to failure of prior interest.

Kumar Tarakeswar Roy v Kumar Shoshi Shikhareswar

where the testator bequeathed his properties to his three nephews and their descendants in the
male line without power of alienation with a gift over stating that if any of the nephews died
without a male child his interest was to be taken by the surviving nephews and their male
descendants, the estate entail failed but the gift was valid.

2. Doctrine of Acceleration

The Doctrine of Acceleration is a principle that allows future interests in property to vest
earlier than originally intended if a prior interest is terminated prematurely. This doctrine
ensures that property does not remain in a legal limbo if the prior interest ends sooner than
expected.

2.2. Application

 When Prior Estate Fails: If the life estate or other prior interest ends before the
natural or intended time (e.g., due to the death of the life tenant without any heirs), the
succeeding interest can accelerate to take effect immediately.
 Example: If property is bequeathed to B for life, and then to C upon B's death, but B
dies without heirs or disclaiming the life interest, C’s interest can accelerate, meaning
C will take possession of the property immediately rather than waiting for the natural
end of B's life estate.

2.4. Exceptions

 Express Condition to the Contrary: If the transfer document expressly states that
the future interest should not vest until the original time set out, regardless of what
happens to the prior estate, the Doctrine of Acceleration will not apply.
 Contingent Remainder: If the remainder is contingent on a specific event (other than
the termination of the prior estate), the Doctrine of Acceleration may not apply until
that condition is met.
Case Law Example:

 Prakash v. Shanti Devi (1974)

o Facts: In this case, the life estate ended earlier than expected, and the question was
whether the succeeding interest could vest immediately.
o Judgment: The court held that the succeeding interest could indeed accelerate to take
effect immediately upon the premature end of the life estate.
o Significance: This case exemplifies the application of the Doctrine of Acceleration in
ensuring that property interests are efficiently transferred and do not remain in
abeyance.
CONFLICT OF RIGHTS BETWEEN PARTIES

Conflicts of rights between parties in property law often arise when multiple parties have
competing claims or interests in the same property. Indian property law provides various
principles and legal remedies to resolve these disputes, ensuring that justice is served while
maintaining the sanctity of property rights.

1. Nature of Conflicts

1.1. Common Scenarios of Conflict

 Disputes Between Co-Owners: When property is owned jointly or in common,

disputes may arise over the use, management, or division of the property.
 Conflicting Claims to Ownership: Multiple parties may claim ownership of the
same property based on different legal grounds, such as inheritance, purchase, or
adverse possession.
 Landlord-Tenant Disputes: Conflicts between landlords and tenants often involve
issues such as rent, eviction, and maintenance responsibilities.
 Easements and Right of Way: Disputes may arise when one party's use of land
interferes with another party's rights, particularly in cases involving easements or
rights of way.
 Conflicts Over Possession: Possession disputes can occur when a party in physical
possession of property is challenged by another party claiming legal ownership.

1.2. Legal Principles Involved

 Doctrine of Priority: When conflicting rights arise, the principle of priority often
determines which party’s rights prevail. Generally, earlier rights take precedence over
later rights.
 Doctrine of Notice: In cases involving transfers, the principle of notice can play a
crucial role. If a subsequent purchaser of property is aware of an existing claim or
right, they may be bound by it.

2. Resolution of Conflicts

2.1. Legal Remedies

 Declaratory Suit: A party may file a declaratory suit under Section 34 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, to have their legal rights in the property declared by a court.
 Injunction: An injunction may be sought to prevent a party from taking actions that
would harm the other party’s rights in the property.
 Partition Suit: Co-owners of property may file a suit for partition to divide the
property according to their respective shares.
  Eviction Proceedings: Landlords can initiate eviction proceedings against tenants
who violate the terms of the lease or fail to pay rent.
 Suit for Possession: A party dispossessed of property may file a suit for possession
under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2.2. Adjudication and Arbitration

 Civil Courts: Most property disputes are resolved through civil courts, where
evidence and legal arguments are presented.
 Arbitration: Parties may choose to resolve property disputes through arbitration,
which can be faster and less formal than court proceedings.
 Mediation: Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution method where a neutral
third party helps the conflicting parties reach a mutually agreeable solution.

2.3. Important Legal Provisions

 Transfer of Property Act, 1882: This Act governs the transfer of property and
provides rules for resolving conflicts related to transfers, sales, mortgages, leases, and
gifts.
 Specific Relief Act, 1963: This Act provides remedies such as specific performance,
injunctions, and declaratory relief in property disputes.
 Indian Easements Act, 1882: This Act deals with the creation and enforcement of
easements, including the resolution of conflicts between dominant and servient
tenements.

3. Case Laws Illustrating Conflicts

3.1. Co-Ownership Dispute

Narayana Rao v. Venkatamma (1959)

o Facts: The case involved a dispute between co-owners of a property, where one co-
owner was using the property in a way that the other co-owners objected to.
o Judgment: The court held that all co-owners have equal rights to the use and
enjoyment of the property, and any one co-owner cannot use the property to the
detriment of the others.
o Significance: The case emphasizes the need for equitable management and use of
jointly owned property.

3.2. Landlord-Tenant Dispute

Sk. Sattar Sk. Mohd. Choudhari v. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate (1996)

o Facts: The landlord sought to evict the tenant for non-payment of rent and
unauthorized alterations to the property.
o Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the landlord, allowing eviction based
on the tenant’s breach of the lease agreement.
 o Significance: The case highlights the enforceability of lease agreements and the rights
of landlords in eviction proceedings.

3.3. Dispute Over Easements

Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha (2008)

o Facts: The dispute involved the right of way over a piece of land, with one party
claiming an easement by necessity.
o Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the right of way, recognizing the easement as
necessary for the beneficial use of the dominant tenement.
o Significance: This case underscores the importance of easements in resolving conflicts
related to the use of property.