PGDBLPropertyIBlock2Units4-6

8/10/2019 PGDBLPropertyIBlock2Units4-6

1/20

SEMESTER

2

COURSE

8 - Property Laws I

BLOCK

2 - General Principles of Property Laws

UNITS

4 - 6

AUTHOR

Mr. Krishna Shorewala


2/20


3/20


4/20

Rainmaker Training & Recruitment Private Limited, 2011.Any unauthorised use or reproduction of this material shall attract all applicable ci vil and criminal law remedies.

4

Unit 4: Rule Against Perpetuities

This Unit will introduce you to yet another interesting area of law

pertaining to the transfer of property for the benefit of an unbornperson.

Transfer to an unborn person

As a general rule, the Transfer of Property Act deals with transfers

inter vivos. However, certain provisions deal with transfers for the

benefit of unborn persons. One such important provision is

Section 13 of the Transfer of Property Act, which provides that it is

possible to transfer property for the benefit of a person who is to

be born on a future date.

The requirements to be met for making a valid transfer under

Section 13 of the Transfer of Property Act are:

There should be a transfer of property.

An interest must be created for the benefit of an unborn

person, that is, a person not in existence at the time of the

transfer.

This interest must extend to the whole of the remaining

interest of the transferor, in order to be valid.

Although an interest for the benefit of the unborn person may be

created, such a transfer cannot be made directly. What this

essentially means is that the estate or property must vest in some

person between the date of the transfer and the coming into

existence of the unborn child. Thus, the validity of the transfer for

the benefit of the unborn person is subject to this prior interest.

It may also be kept in mind that if the unborn child is restrained

from alienating the property absolutely, then the transfer is invalid.

The illustration below will be helpful in understanding this better.

Illustration: Asha transfers a property to Bipasha for Bipashas

lifetime, and then to Bipashas unborn first child absolutely. This

transfer would be valid under Section 13 of the Transfer of

Property Act.

However, if in the same transfer, the unborn child is restrained

from alienating the property absolutely, then the transfer fails to

meet the final requirement of Section 13 of the Transfer of


5/20


5

Property Act, and hence, such a transfer is invalid. So let us

assume that after Bipashas unborn child the property is to revert

back to Asha and her heirs. You see, such a transfer imposes a

restriction on the unborn child. The unborn child may only acquire

only a life interest, and therefore, cannot transfer the property as

an owner to a third party. For this reason, the transfer would be

invalid.

It is important to note that the term unborn person does not

include a child en ventra se mere, that is, a child in the womb.

This is so because such a child is considered to be in existence.

The term extend under Section 13 of the Transfer of Property Act

is directed towards the absolute nature of the estate conferred and

not the certainty of vesting. So, the property need not be vested in

the unborn person at birth but must be conferred within the

requirements of the section.iiiThis is clear from the Illustration

above.

Rule against Perpetuities

The rule against perpetuities or the doctrine of remotenessis an

English principle relating to the transfer of property. In its modern

form, the rule in England provides that no contingent or executory

interest may be created unless it vests within the maximum period

of one or more lives in being and twenty-one years.iv

The term perpetuity simply is a disposition, which makes property

inalienable for an indefinite period. Section 14 of the Transfer of

Property Act deals with this other important restriction on transfer

of property. It provides that no transfer of property can operate to

create an interest that takes effect only after the lifetime of one or

more persons living at the date of the transfer, and the minority of

some person who must be in existence at the expiration of that

period, and to whom on attaining full age, the interest created is to

belong. In other words, it provides that the property cannot be tied

for an indefinite period. Further, the property cannot be transferred

in an unending way. The rule is based on the considerations of

public policy, since property cannot be made inalienable unless it

is in the interest of the community.

The rule against perpetuity invalidates any bequest or inheritance

that delays vesting beyond the life or lives-in-being and theminority of the donee who must be living at the close of the last

life. Simply put, property can be transferred to an unborn person

who has to be born at the expiration of the interest created and


6/20


6

the maximum permissible remoteness is of eighteen years, that is,

the age of majority in India.

The purpose behind the rule against perpetuities is as follows:There is a need to limit the time for which ownership can be split

up into present and future interests. It makes the property difficult

to sell. It also makes loans to improve the property difficult to get

as the present owner has a limited right over the property. In

addition to this, it also makes alienation of the property almost

impossible. Such a practice militates against the spirit of the

legislation, which is to allow ordered but free alienation and

circulation of property among living persons.

An analysis of this provision may be carried out in the following

manner. Suppose there are four stages. Stage I is the lifetime of

the transferee, and at Stage II are living persons. At these two

stages, the transferor can put any conditions he wants and every

condition he wants (subject, of course, to the other provisions of

the Transfer of Property Act). He can create limited estates,

interests, and transfer specific rights as he should think fit. AtStage III, however, we have the ultimate transferee. Here, is the

transferee who is an unborn person at the time of the transfer.

Now, when the time comes for the property to pass on to him, he

must be born. Or else, he will lose the property. If he is born

during or prior to Stage II, Section 20 of the Transfer of Property

Act will operate and the property will vest in him. If the transferor

wishes, the vesting may be postponed till he attains majority.

Stage IV is that of the date the ultimate transferee attains majority.

At this stage and not a second afterwards the transfer will be

allowed as the perpetuity is valid up to stage IV and not after.

Illustration: Akshay transfers a property to Bipasha for life and

then to her unborn child on attaining 21 years of age. Here, the

transfer would be bad for violating the rule against perpetuity. The

transfer was valid for Bipashas life interest. Further, it vested the

property in the unborn child absolutely. However, the property

would vest in him only on attaining 21 years of age, that is, 3

years after the age of majority. This would be bad in India where

the perpetuity period cannot extend beyond the majority of the

unborn person.

The rule against perpetuities does not restrict the creation of

successive life interests created in favour of living persons.

Illustration: In Veerattalingamv. Rameshv, where A executed a will

giving possession of her properties to her sons without the power


7/20


7

to alienate, and after that, a life interest in sons sons. The will also

provided that after the death of the grandsons, the property had to

be transferred in favour of the great-grandsons absolutely. The

great-grandsons were unborn at the time the will was executed.

However, the Supreme Court held that the transfer of property for

successive life interests in favour of living persons was valid, and

not hit by Section 14 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Thus, we see that Sections 13 and 14 of the Transfer of Property

Act operate to curb transfer practices that would discourage the

transfer of properties subsequently. They prevent the property

from being locked and inalienable.

The next important area to consider in this regard is the manner in

which these rules operate when transfers are made to a class of

persons.

Class Transfers

The concept of a class is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary as a

group of persons, things, qualities or activities, having common

characteristics or attributes. Also, it may be a body of persons

uncertain in number.

One of the earliest definitions of a class of persons was given byLord Selborne in Pearksv. Moseleyvi. In this case, a gift is said to

be to a class of persons when it was to all those persons within a

certain category or description defined by a general or collective

formula.

An important aspect of class transfers is that they are group-

minded and fluctuate with the size of the group. The group of

persons is uncertain in number at the time of the transfer and the

share of each person is dependant on the ultimate number in the

group.vii

In relation to the rules against perpetuity and for transfers for the

benefit of unborn persons, the law relating to transfer to a class is

dealt with by Section15 of the Transfer of Property Act, which

provides that in the case of transfer to a class, if any of the

members of a class are hit by the limitations enumerated in

Section 13 and Section 14, then the transfer would fail in relation

to those people. However, it would not fail for the entire class. The


8/20


8

transfer would be valid for the remainder of the class, which does

meet the requirements of Section 13 and Section 14.

Further, Section 16 of the Transfer of Property Act provides furtherthat if an interest should fail entirely by the operation of Sections

13 and 14, then any interest that is created subsequent to such a

failed interest must also fail. Thus, by virtue of this Section, when

the transfer in favour of the prior interest is bad for violating the

rule against perpetuity, then the interest subsequent to it also fails

and is void. It is based on the English principle that a limitation

following upon a limitation void for remoteness is itself void even

though it may not itself transgress the rule against perpetuity or

the rule relating to transfer in favour of unborn persons. It applies

to subsequent interests of both kinds those that are to take

place after the prior interest or on the failure of prior interest. Thus,

in both cases, if the prior interest cannot take, the claim of the

subsequent interest(s) will also fail.

Illustration: Anthony transfers property to Brutus for life and then

to Brutuss sons who attain the age of 21 years and in default ofthat to Ceaser absolutely. At the time of the transfer Brutus has no

sons. In such a case, the transfer to Brutuss son fails for violating

the rule against perpetuity. Therefore, the transfer would be void

as to Ceaser as well under Section 16 of the Transfer of

Property Act.

When there is an alternative gift, which is independent of the gifthit by the rule against perpetuities or in relation to unborn persons,

and is capable to taking effect independently, then such a gift

would be valid and not be affected by the invalidity of the other

gift.viii

Illustration: In TarokessurRoyv. Soshi Shukhuressar Royix, the

testator bequeaths to his three nephews his properties and a gift

to their male descendants without the power of alienation over the

property stating that if any of the nephews died without a male

child, his interest would be taken by the surviving nephews and

their male descendants. The estate failed but the gift was valid.


9/20


9

Unit 5: Doctrine of Election and Apportionment

Doctrine of Election

The Doctrine of Election is one of the most important areas of the

law relating to transfer of property. Section 35 of the Transfer of

Property Act deals with this doctrine. The primary element in the

doctrine of election is the presence of choice. A choice is given to

the owner of the property to either perfect an imperfect transfer

and enjoy its benefits or avoid the transfer and also forgo the

benefit. The situation in which the doctrine comes into play is set

out in Section 35 as follows:

A person professes to transfer property when that person

has no right to do so; and

As a part of the same transaction, that person confers any

benefit on the owner of the property.

If both these facts are true in any transaction, then according tothe doctrine of election, the owner must elect to confirm such a

transfer or to dissent from it. If the owner chooses to dissent from

it, then he must forgo the benefit that is conferred upon him by the

transaction. As a result of the benefit so forgone it reverts back to

the transferor or his representatives. If the owner chooses to

confirm the transfer, he may retain the benefit conferred upon him

by the transaction.

However, this is subject to further conditions. If the transfer is

for consideration or, in a case where it is gratuitous, the transferor

has died or otherwise become incapable of making a fresh

transfer before the election, then the doctrines operation will be

subject to the charge of compensating the disappointed transferee

for the amount or value of the property sought to be transferred

to him.

Illustration: In Mangaldossv. Ranchoddasx, a widow with a limited

estate over her deceased husbands property executed a will

bequeathing the property to A and a sum of Rupees Two

thousand to B. A and B were also the nearest reversioners of the

deceased husband. A reversioner is the living heir of the last

owner entitled to succeed to the estate on the death of a widow orother heirs. On the death of the widow, B had a claim over half of

the property which had been bequeathed to A. According to the

doctrine of election, B would have to make a choice here. He had


10/20


10

to elect to take either the half share of the property outside of the

will or take the money under the will and forgo his claim over the

property.

For the doctrine of election to operate, a person must gain a

benefit directly from a transaction. That essentially implies that if a

person benefits indirectly, he need not elect.xiIt is also essential

for the operation of the doctrine that the transferor should not have

the right to transfer the property. The principle underlying is that

the benefit and burden of a transaction must coexist. One cannot

avail of the benefit and, at the same time, also rid themselves of

the burden. However, for this to operate, both the benefit and the

burden must form part of the same transaction. The benefit and

the burden cannot be independent of each other.xiiThe doctrine is

best explained by way of an illustration.

Illustration: Amar transfers to Mulayam a property that, in fact,

belongs to Maya. Also, as a part of the same transaction, Maya

receives a factory unit. Under the doctrine of election, Maya has a

choice. She may choose to dissent from the transaction and takeback the property that is rightfully hers. However, in this case, she

must then forgo the factory that was transferred to her as a part of

the same transaction. On the other hand, she may choose to

confirm the transaction. In that case, she will be allowed to keep

the benefit she derives from the transaction that is, the factory

unit. However, she must then forgo the property she originally

owned, which is then permanently transferred to Mulayam.

Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act also provides certain

exceptions to the application of the doctrine of election. They are:

When a particular benefit is expressly conferred, in lieu of

the property, on its owner by the transferor, and if such

owner elects to dissent from the transaction, then the owner

must relinquish that benefit (expressly conferred) but not

any other benefit that may be derived from the transaction.

Illustration: Thus, if Mohan sells property belonging to Sonia

to Rahul. In the sale deed, it is expressly states that in lieu

of the property, Sonia shall be given a gold mine. Sonia may

elect to reclaim the property and forgo the gold mine.

However, she need not forgo any other benefit that also is

conferred on her by the transaction. Now, let us assume thatthe sale deed contained additionally a payment of Rupees

Two thousand to Sonia. According to the exception in


11/20


11

Section 35, Sonia can retain that amount even after

dissenting from the transaction.

Election by the owner may be express or even implied.

Acceptance of a benefit with full knowledge implies an

election. So, when a person accepts the benefits under the

transaction, the onerous part of the transaction is

automatically confirmed. Once an election is made, it is final

and binding and cannot be revoked unless it can be shown

that it was made without any or with incomplete knowledge

of the transaction. The Transfer of Property Act provides

that the person electing must be aware of his duty to elect

and of those circumstances that would influence the

judgement of a reasonable man in making an election or

waives such enquiry into circumstances.

Illustration: Sahil transfers certain property to Akshay and in

the same instrument transfers Rupees Twenty thousand to

Aditya, the real owner of the property. Aditya comes to know

of this and uses the money he receives to pay for a new

television in his house. As you may have realised, by

spending the money, he has impliedly elected to forgo his

claim on the property. Subsequently, he cannot try to claim

his right of election.

Transfer of Property Act also indirectly provides for the time

period for such election. Waiver is inferred if the benefit is

enjoyed for two years without any express act of dissent or if

it is impossible to restore the parties in the same condition

as if the act had not been done. If a year has elapsed since

the date of transfer to make the election, the transferor or

his representative may require the owner to elect and if he

does not comply with the requisition within a reasonable

period, he will be deemed to confirm the transfer. In case of

disability, however, the election shall be postponed until the

disability ceases, or until a competent authority makes the

election.

Illustration: Amit transfers certain property Shamit owns to

Rohit and, by the same instrument, transfers certain

properties he owns to Shamit. Shamit must now elect

whether he wants to claim Amits property under the

instrument or have his own property returned. Shamit does

not elect for a whole year. Amit sends him a notice asking


12/20


12

him to elect within a period of three months from the receipt

of the notice. Shamit does not reply or make an election

within that period. In such a case, he will be deemed to

confirm the transfer.

Apportionment

Apportionment is dealt with under Sections 36 and 37 of the

Transfer of Property Act. Apportionment literally means

distribution. Section 36 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with

apportionment by time and provides rules for the distribution of

income accruing from the property between the transferor and

the transferee on affecting the transfer. The Section provides

that unless there is a contract or local usage to the contrary, all

periodical payments in the nature of income will be deemed to

accrue on a daily basis and have to be apportioned accordingly,

upon transfer of the interest of the person entitled to receive them.

The amount is payable on the days appointed for the payment

thereof. The illustration below may help us in understanding

this better.

Illustration: Aishwarya owns a property from which a rent of

Rupees Thirty thousand accrues each month, payable at the last

day of the month. Aishwarya sells the property to Katrina on the

fifteenth day of the month. When the rent of that month is

received, Section 36 of the Transfer of Property Act allows for its

fair apportionment or distribution by presuming it to accrue on a

daily basis and allowing Aishwarya to receive the rent payable for

the first fifteen days that is, Rupees Fifteen thousand, and the

remaining rent going to the new owner, Katrina.

The rule of apportionment only applies to transfers within the

meaning of Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act and not to

transfers excluded under Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act.

As we have discussed earlier in Block 2, Section 6 prohibits

certain kinds of transfers absolutely. Therefore, it does not apply

to court sales or joint family property.xivIt may also be excluded by

a contract to the contrary dispensing with the rule of

apportionment. The rule can also be excluded by the operation of

a local usage that provides to the contrary.

While Section 36 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with

apportionment by time, Section 37 of the Transfer of Property Act

deals with the apportionment by estate. It applies in a situation


13/20


13

where, on a transfer, a property is divided and held in several

shares. The benefit of any obligation from such division passes

from one to several owners. In such a scenario the corresponding

duty must be performed in favour of each of the transferees in

proportion to the value of their share in the property provided that

the duty can be severed. It is important to note that such

severance of duty must not increase the onus of the obligation.

However, if the onus does increase or severance is not possible,

then the duty shall be performed for the benefit of one of such

several owners as they shall jointly designate for the purpose.

transferor or the transferee can give the notice with regard to the

severance.xvA person should have notice of the severance to be

answerable for failing to discharge the burden of the obligation.

Agricultural leases are exempted from this rule unless applied by

the State Government in the Official Gazette.xvi

Illustration: Amar transfers a property to Akshay, Amit, and Aruj in

equal portions. The property comes with a condition that a yearly

maintenance of Rupees Six thousand should be paid to Amars

sister, Akshaya. Here, just as Akshay, Amit, and Aruj are entitled

to the benefits of the property, they will also be obligated to the

same extent to the obligations under the property. Therefore, each

of them would be liable here to pay Rupees Two thousand every

year to fulfil the condition on which the transfer is made.

Under Section 37 of the Transfer of Property Act, therefore, whenthe lessor transfers leased property to several persons, the tenant

is obligated to pay rent not just to one of them or to all of them in

equal shares, but must pay each in proportion to his contribution

to the property.

Illustration: Four brothers, Varun, Vinay, Vikram, and Vishesh

jointly purchase a house for Rupees Twenty five lakhs. Varun

pays Rupees Ten lakhs and the rest pay Rupees Five lakhs each

for the purchase. The house is leased to Akram for Rupees Ten

thousand. By the operation of Section 37, Akram will be obligated

to pay Rupees Four thousand to Varun and Rupees Two

thousand to each of the other three brothers.

With this we conclude our discussion on the doctrine of election

and the rules relating to apportionment. The final Unit in this Block

relates to two important principles: the transfer of ownership by

estoppeland lis pendens.


14/20


15/20


15

The property should not be transferred or otherwise dealt

with by any of the parties to the suit so as to affect the

rights of any of the other party to the suit till the final

disposal of the suit unless authorised by the court and on

such terms as it may impose.

The provision was extensively amended in 1929 to resolve a

number of controversies that had cropped up since its inception.

The Explanation defining the term pendency was added.

Pendency is the primary requirement for invoking the doctrine of

lis pendensand the Explanation helps add certainty to the ambit

of the term. According to the Explanation, and as mentioned

above a suit or proceeding commences on presenting the plaint or

instituting the proceedings and continues till a final decree or order

has been passed by the court or the suit is barred by limitation

under the laws in force at the time.

Further, the suit should not be collusive. The term collusive was

also added to the provision by Section 52 of the Transfer of

Property Act by the 1929 Amendment. A suit is said to be

collusive when it is a sham suit, a pretentious suit or one filled with

conspiracy. Two parties may collude together and file a bogus suit

in the Court for their personal benefit. When the suit is tainted with

fraud, it is regarded as a collusive suit.xx

Illustration: Akshay agrees to sell his house to Vinay and takes an

advance amount of Rupees One lakh from him. They agree that if

Vinay fails to pay the remaining amount within thirty days, then he

will forfeit the advance. Further, if Akshay fails to execute the

transfer within the same time, he will have to pay three times the

advance amount that is, Rupees Three lakhs to Vinay as

damages. During the thirty days, Akshay changes his mind about

selling the house. However, he does not wish to pay the damages

either. Therefore, he and his best friend Anish collude and Anish

files a suit against Akshay for recovery of dues owed to him and

seeks to recover the amount from the house that would have been

sold to Vinay. Here, even if there is a charge over the house, the

doctrine of lis pendenswould not be attracted, since it is a

collusive suit and not a genuine one.

The doctrine of lis pendens, as it is found in Section 52 of the

Transfer of Property Act, applies in very specific instances only.

For instance, it is only applicable in suits relating to immoveable

property. Movable property is not included within this doctrine. The


16/20


16

doctrine continues to apply even when a decree is passed but an

appeal is filed.xxi

It also continues to operate till the stage of the execution of thedecree.xxiiEven a civil appeal, which is preferred to the Supreme

Court in pursuance of a grant of special leave under Article 136 of

the Constitution of India, the doctrine of lis pendenscontinues to

apply to the suit property.xxiii

Illustration: In Dalip Ramv. Jeewan Ram, the plaintiff had filed a

suit for possession of a land that was sold to the defendant. The

lower court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance

of which, he took possession of the property. The defendant

appealed to the High Court but it was dismissed. Thereafter, he

filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The court granted

accepted the appeal. But during the period of this appeal, the

plaintiff had sold the property to another who resisted a decree of

restitution. The court held that the doctrine of lis pendensapplied

and this was a sale, which was pending disposal of a case before

the Supreme Court.

An important question for consideration here is: what is the effect

of the violation of the doctrine? What happens if a transfer

pendente liteis made? The restriction under Section 52 of the

Transfer of Property Act operates on the parties to the litigation,

that is, the transferor and not the third party transferee as such. As

we noted above, the transferee gets whatever rights or title the

transferor had at the time of the sale. Therefore, a transfer

pendente liteis not void, but only dependent on the outcome of

the litigation.

Illustration: Once again, take the case of Dalip Ramv. Jeewan

Ram discussed in the previous illustration. There, when the

plaintiff in the original suit transferred the property to a third party,

the transfer was valid. Its validity was not disputed. However, it

was subject to the outcome of the litigation. Therefore, when the

Supreme Court allowed the appeal, then the transferee would be

bound by it under the doctrine of lis pendens. Similarly, had the

Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, the third party would be

entitled to undisturbed enjoyment of the property transferred.

The Section does not annul the conveyance but only makes it

subject to the determination of the rights of the parties by

decree.xxviIn terms of the litigation itself, the conveyance will be

treated as non est or invalid and the transferor shall be regarded

as the owner of the property notwithstanding the transfer.


17/20


17

Ownership by Estoppel

Estoppelis a principle in equity where, in certain cases, if a

person makes an assertion to another and then the other acts onit, then that person can be estoppedfrom denying that assertion.

Illustration: Akshay promises to buy a large quantity of garments

that Amar produces. Although no formal contract is made, Amar

starts procuring the raw materials required to meet the production

requirements and incurs expenditures thereof. Subsequently,

Akshay may be estoppedin equity from going back on his promise

and will be required to abide by it even in the absence of a formal

contract.

Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with the role of

estoppelin the transfer of property. It provides that where a

person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is

authorised to transfer certain immovable property and professes

to transfer it for consideration, the transferee shall have the option

to allow the transfer to operate on any interest the transferor

acquires in such property at any time during the subsistence of the

contract.

Illustration: if X sells two properties, A and B, to Y. However, X is

not authorised to sell B as it belongs to his father, Z. Now, on the

death of Z, when X inherits the property B, Y may ask X to deliver

B, if he has not rescinded the contract until then.

For Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act to apply, the

following conditions must be fulfilled:

The transferor should make a fraudulent or erroneous

representation of authority to transfer;

The transferee should act on that representation;

The transfer must not be prohibited by the law; and

Subsequently, while the contract subsists, the transferor

should acquire an interest in that property

If all these conditions are fulfilled, then the transferee can exercise

the option to obtain the interest so acquired by the transferor.

However, if the contract is rescinded, then no such option shall

exist.


18/20


18

Conclusion

With this, we conclude our discussion on the doctrines of lis

pendensand estoppel. Also, this ends our discussion on the

general principles of Property Law. As discussed earlier, these

principles apply to all transfers and are meant to facilitate transfers

in various ways and forms and curb practices that restrict the

transfer of property. In the next Block, we shall be looking at

specific forms of transfer of property and rules relating thereto.

-x-x-


19/20


19

Suggested Reading

Books

Justice Ramanujam (ed.), G.C.V. Subbaraos Transfer of

Property Act, 15th ed., C. Subbiah Chetty & Co, Chennai,

2005.

Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Property Law, 2nded.,

LexisNexis Butterworths, New Delhi, 2011.

S.M. Lahiri, The Transfer of Property Act (Act IV of 1882),

11thed., India Law House, New Delhi, 2001.


20/20


20

iiiFramrozev. Tehmina, AIR 1948 Bom 188.

ivIn re Ridley(1879) 11 Ch.D. 645.

v(1991) 1 SCC 489.

vi(1880) 5 App. Casw. 714.

vii

Bryan A. Garner (Ed.), Blacks Law Dictionary, 8th ed., Thomson West, 2007, St.Paul, at p. 709.viii

Re Davy[1915] 1 Ch. 837.ix(1883) ILR 9 Cal 952, as cited in Halsburys Laws of India103 (12) Property and

Easements, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, New Delhi, 2002).xMangaldoss v. Ranchoddas,14 Bom. 438.

xiRamayyarv. Mahalakshmi, AIR 1922 Mad 357.

xiiDahnpattiv. Devi Prasad, (1970) 3 SCC 779.

xivSee Subbarajuv. Seethamaraju, (1916) ILR 39 Mad 283; Manmad Kunhiv.

Ibrayani Haji, AIR 1959 Ker 208.xv

Peary Lalv. Madhoji, (1913) 17 Cal LJ 372.xvi

Also seeAlimuddinv. Hiralal, (1896) ILR 23 Cal 87.xvii

See Govinda Pillaiv.Aiyappan Krishnan, AIR 1975 Ker 10.xviii

SeeBellamyv. Sabine, (1857) 1 De G&J 566.xix

Lou Raj Kumarv. Daya Shanker, AIR 1986 Del 364.xxSeeAnnamalaiv. Mayayandi, (1906) ILR 29 Mad 426.xxi

Purshottamv. Bai Moti, AIR 1963 Guj 30.xxii

Ammayiv. Sitaramayya, AIR 1925 Mad 1039.xxiii

SeeDalip Kumarv. Jeewan Ram, AIR 1996 P&H 158.xxvi

Liladharv. Shivaji, AIR 1936 Nag 125.

PGDBLPropertyIBlock2Units4-6

Documents

Transcript of PGDBLPropertyIBlock2Units4-6