Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, deals with the concept of “Feeding the Grant by Estoppel.” This section applies in situations where a person who does not have the authority to transfer immovable property fraudulently or erroneously claims to transfer it. If that person later acquires the authority or interest in the property, the transferee (the person to whom the property was transferred) has the right to compel the transferor to pass on the property to them. This provision essentially prevents the transferor from denying the validity of the transfer once they obtain the title or authority. The principle behind this provision is rooted in equity, where the law treats as done that which ought to be done.
Essentials of Section 43
To invoke Section 43, the following conditions must be fulfilled:
- False Representation by Transferor: The transferor must falsely represent that they have the authority to transfer the property, whether fraudulently or by mistake.
- Transfer for Consideration: The transfer must be made for valid consideration.
- Subsequent Acquisition of Interest: The transferor later acquires the authority or title in the property they initially claimed to transfer.
In such cases, the transferee can demand that the transferor complete the transfer by passing the interest to them once the transferor acquires the title.
Effect of Subsequent Transfer to a Bona Fide Purchaser
The proviso to Section 43 protects the interests of bona fide subsequent transferees who acquire the property for value and without notice of the original transfer. If such a transfer has taken place, the transferee under Section 43 cannot claim the property from the subsequent transferee.
Exceptions and Limitations
- No Duty to Inquire: Section 43 does not impose a duty on the transferee to verify the title of the transferor. It is sufficient if the transferee was misled by the transferor’s representation.
- Inapplicability to Involuntary Transfers: Section 43 does not apply to involuntary transfers such as auction sales conducted by court order.
- No Applicability to Void Transfers: Section 43 cannot validate a transfer that is void ab initio (from the beginning), such as transfers that are against public policy or made by minors.
- Non-transferable Property: If the property is non-transferable under Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 43 has no application.
Apparent Conflict Between Section 6(a) and Section 43
Section 6(a) declares that the "chance of an heir apparent" or spec successionis is non-transferable, and any such transfer is void. On the other hand, Section 43 validates a transfer made without title when the transferor subsequently acquires that title.
Judicial Interpretation
The landmark case of Jumma Masjid v. Kodimaniandra (AIR 1962 SC) clarified the apparent contradiction between Section 6(a) and Section 43. The Supreme Court held that Section 6(a) invalidates the transfer of a spec successionis, while Section 43, being based on estoppel, allows a transferee to claim the property if they were misled by the transferor. If the transferee is unaware of the spec successionis, Section 43 operates. However, if the transferee knowingly enters into such a transaction, Section 6(a) prevails, rendering the transfer void.
Conclusion
Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act embodies the principle of equity and estoppel, ensuring that a person who promises more than they can deliver must fulfill their promise once they acquire the authority to do so. It protects the interests of innocent transferees who act on the erroneous representations of transferors. However, its application is subject to exceptions where the transfer is void or involves non-transferable property. Judicial interpretation has further clarified its scope and harmonized its application with Section 6(a), ensuring that equity and justice prevail in matters of property transfer.
