TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882

CASE STUDY
CASE-Sri Narayan Chandra Saha vs Smt. Dipali
Mukherjee And Ors. on 2 February, 2002

SUBMITTED TO, SUBMITTED BY,

DR. MAMTA SHARMA SANDEEP KUMAR

(FACULTY OF LAW) 14/ILB/029

LAW 4TH YEAR

 Sri Narayan Chandra Saha

vs

Smt. Dipali Mukherjee And Ors. on 2 February, 2002

This case is related to section 43 of transfer of property act 1882

Section 43 in The Transfer of Property Act, 1882

43. Transfer by unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest in property transferred.
—Where a person 1[fraudulently or] erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer
certain immoveable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such
transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may
acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists. Nothing in
this section shall impair the right of transferees in good faith for consideration without notice of
the existence of the said option. Illustration A, a Hindu who has separated from his father B, sells
to C three fields, X, Y and Z, representing that A is authorised to transfer the same. Of these
fields Z does not belong to A, it having been retained by B on the partition; but on B’s dying A as
heir obtains Z. C, not having rescinded the contract of sale, may require A to deliver Z to him.

FACT OF THE CASE,

The appellants were trespassers. The appellants have failed to prove their tenancies. According
to the appellants, Pradlp Kumar Basu Inducted them as monthly tenants in respect of the Suit
Properties and issued rent receipts for a period of more than three years during the lifetime of
his father, the owner. Pushpamoy Basu died in January 1983 and the property devolved on his
sons and daughters. Accordingly, one of the sons of the said Pushpamoy Basu became a co-
owner of the property. Admittedly, the co-owners sold the property of the plaintiff/ respondent
No.1 in the month of January 1984 and the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed both the suits in the
year 1986.

ISSUE RELATED TO THIS CASE,

1) Whether Pradip Kumar Basu inducted the defendants in both the suits with oral permission of
his father as he has deposed or without authority of his father.

2) It is not established that Pradip Kumar Basu was duly authorised by his father to induct the
defendants and induction of defendants by Pradip Kumar Basu was not lawful and therefore the
appellants/defendants are trespassers.

3) If the letting out was with permission of father then valid tenancy was created in favour of the
defendants/appellants on the date of the Induction and the defendant/appellants cannot be
called as trespasser. There has been no termination of tenancy.

4) If the induction by the son was without the authority of his father, the owner, then the lack of
authority was cured when Pushpamoy Basu died and Pradip Kumar Basu became one of the co-
owners. A co-owner has authority to let out any part of the property. Mr. Mitra father submitted
that equitable principle embodied in Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act comes into
operations in the present case.

Following were the case which Mr.mitra cited the following decisions in support of his aforesaid
contentions:

1. Surendra Nath Dey & Ors. v. Rajendra Chandra & Ors. reported in 27 CLJ 289,

2. Jaimur Ali & Ors. v. Chaflna Bibi & Ors. reported in AIR 1951 Assam 20,

3. Juma Masjid v. Kodimantandra Deviah, ,

4. Jagat Narain v. Laljee,

ARGUMENT
Mr. Mitra specifically submitted that there is no finding of the Courts below that the appellants
were aware in respect of the lack of authority of Pradip Kumar Basu to induct the appellants in
the Suit Property. According to the learned counsel of the appellants Pushpamoy Basu, the
father of Pradip Kumar Basu was the owner at the relevant point of time and admittedly the son
was putting the appellants into possession. Mr. Mitra. further, submitted that admittedly the
appellants remained in possession during the lifetime of the father, Pushpamoy Basu, the owner
of the Suit Property at the relevant point of time who died four years after the induction of the
appellants in the Suit property. Mr. Mitra contended that in view of the relationship of father
and son, the appellants herein should not be blamed if they did not make any enquiry about the
father at the time of entering into the Suit Property and believed that Pradip Kumar Basu being
the son had authority of the father to let out.

1. According to Mr. Mitra even an erroneous belief would not render Section 43 of the Transfer
of Property Act inapplicable as has been held in the case of Juma Masjfd (supra) and thereafter
by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jagat Naratn v. Laljee (supra). According to Mr. Mitra,
it is not a case of an estoppel under Section 115 of Evidence Act or estoppel by conduct, which
involves question of fact and this involves the question whether the law as embodied in Section
43 of Transfer of Property Act is applicable.

2. Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent
No. 1 submitted that when the Courts below have held that the appellants are trespassers and
not tenants then the application of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act does not arise at
all. According to Mr. Chatterjee, in order to seek protection under Section 43 of the Transfer of
Property one has to plead and prove the following:

a) A representation has been made by the transferor that he had the authority to transfer the
property in question.

b) The transferee in fact had been misled by such representation.

c) The transferee must act on the basis of the representation made by the transferor.

d) if the transferee knew as a fact that the transferor did not possess the title, which he had
represented then the transferee could not be said to have acted on the basis of such
representation when taking a transfer and Section 43 would not have any application.

3. Mr. Chatterjee cited the following decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his aforesaid
contentions:

i) (Juma Masjid v. Kodimaniandra Deviah) .

ii) (Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar).

iii) (Kartar Singh v. Harbans Kaur).

4. Mr. Chatterjee, further, submitted that it is the duty of the appellants as transferee to make a
reasonable enquiry as to the Title of the transferor.

Referring to the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, Mr. Chatterjee submitted that the
Supreme Court has also held that Section 43 embodies rule of estoppel. Referring to the decision
reported in 22 CWN 179(Gopal Lal Sett v. Purna Chandra Basak), Mr. Chatterjee submitted that
since the question of estoppel is Involved, the same has to be pleaded specifically.

5. Referring to the judgment of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, Mr. Chatterjee
submitted that in this case following facts would emerge:

a) The written statement filed by the defendants did not have the necessary pleadings at all.

b) it was not the case of the defendants in their written statement that Pradip Kumar Basu (son
of the owner) induced the defendant believe falsely that he was the owner/land lord or that he
had any the requisite authority.

c) The pleading and evidence show that the defendants/appellants knew very well that
Pushpamoy Basu was the original owner and they were Inducted by Pushpamoy Basu which they
failed to prove and in evidence the appellants said that they were inducted by Pradip Kumar
Basu.

d) in evidence the defendants did not say thai Pradip Kumar Basu induced them to think that he
was the owner of the suit premises.
e) The defendants also knew that Pradip Kumar Basu was not the owner and further that he had
no authority to let out the suit premises.

f) The defendants neither pleaded nor led any evidence contending that any representation was
made by Pradip Kumar Basu (son of owner). The First Appellate Court has elaborately discussed
the doctrine of estoppel in the judgment.

In view of aforesaid facts, Mr. Chatterjee submitted that no protection can be sought for by the
appellants under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel of the
plaintiff/respondent No. 1 also pointed out that in the grounds of appeal, appellants has not
contended that the learned Judge of the Courts below should have held that Pradip Kumar Basu
had made representation that he had the authority to transfer the Suit premises and the
defendants were induced thereby and acted on the basis of such representation. Mr. Chatterjee
therefore submitted that the defendants/appellants should not be allowed to urge that Section
43 of Transfer of Property Act should come into play.

6. Referring to the Judgments cited by the learned counsel of the appellants, Mr. Chatterjee
submitted that those judgments have not emphasized the requirement of representation by the
transferor and the transferee's acting on such representation. Mr. Chatterjeee, however, placed
strong reliance on the Judgment in support of his contention as already mentioned hereinbefore.

7. Now, the only point arises for determination in both the appeals is whether the protection of
Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act is available to the appellants in view of the fact that
the second son of the landlord, Pradlp Kumar Basu, who inducted the appellants in the property
at the relevant point of time became a co-owner of the property on the death of his landlord
father.

JUDGEMENT
A reading clearly shows that for application of Section 43 of the Act, two conditions must be
satisfied. Firstly, that there is a fraudulent or erroneous representation made by the transferor to
the transferee that he is authorised to transfer certain immovable property and in the purported
exercise of authority, professed to transfer such property for consideration. Subsequently, when
it is discovered that the transferor acquired an interest in the transferred property, at the option
of the transferees, he is entitled to get the restitution of interest in property got by the
transferor, provided the transferor acquires such interest in the property during which contract
of transfer must subsist."

So, for the purpose of application of Section 43 fraudulent or erroneous representation by the
transferor to (he transferee is a must. In the present case, nowhere it has been pleaded that
Pradip Kumar Basu (son of owner) made any representation that he was the owner/landlord or
that he had the requisite authority to induct the appellants in the suit property. The finding of
the First Appellate Court in this regard is hereunder:
 It is not the case of the defendants. Their written statement that Pradip Kumar Basu inducted
the defendants to believe falsely that he was the landlord and being induced by such belief, they
came to the suit premises as tenants under Pradip Kumar Basu. On the other hand, both
pleading and the evidence show that the defendants knew very well that Pushpamoy Basu was
the original owner of the suit premises and that is why they pleaded in their written statements
that they were inducted by Pushpamoy Base. This plea they failed to prove.

It was held that Even in the grounds of appeal, the appellants have not contended that the
learned Court should have held that Pradip Kumar Basu had made any representation about his
authority to transfer the suit premises and the defendants were Induced thereby and acted on
the basis of such representation. Accordingly, the defendants/appellants cannot be allowed to
urge that Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act should come Into play in the present case or
any protection can be available to the defendants/appellants under Section 43 of the Transfer of
Property Act.

the instant second appeals are devoid of merit Accordingly, both the second appeals fail and the
same are dismissed.

prays for stay of the operation of this judgment was refused.