Scribd
Upload
8 views3 pages

Landmark Case

The document outlines landmark legal cases that establish key principles in property law, including the non-transferability of spes successionis, the void nature of minor agreements, and the invalidity of transfers creating estates for unborn persons. It discusses various doctrines such as election, feeding the grant by estoppel, and part performance, along with the implications of lease agreements and the right of redemption. The cases cited provide foundational legal precedents that shape the understanding of property rights and transfers in Indian law.

Uploaded by

globaltalentacquisitionteams
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views3 pages

Landmark Case

The document outlines landmark legal cases that establish key principles in property law, including the non-transferability of spes successionis, the void nature of minor agreements, and the invalidity of transfers creating estates for unborn persons. It discusses various doctrines such as election, feeding the grant by estoppel, and part performance, along with the implications of lease agreements and the right of redemption. The cases cited provide foundational legal precedents that shape the understanding of property rights and transfers in Indian law.

Uploaded by

globaltalentacquisitionteams
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Landmark Case:

Raja Chelikani Venkayamma v. Raja Chelikani Venkataramanayyamma (AIR 1919 PC 44)


The Privy Council held that spes successionis is not transferable, even if consideration is paid.

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903)


The Privy Council held that a minor’s agreement is void ab initio, hence a minor cannot transfer
property under Section 7.

Mahalaxmi Bank Ltd. v. Ranganath (1957)


A condition terminating ownership on insolvency is void under Section 12.

Tagore v. Tagore (1872)


A transfer creating an estate unknown to Hindu law in favour of an unborn person is invalid.
Laid foundation of absolute interest rule.

Jeevan Reddy v. Joga Rao (1972)


Transfer in favour of unborn person must satisfy Section 13 strictly, otherwise it is void.

Srinivasa v. Narayan (AIR 1954 SC)


The Supreme Court held that mere postponement of enjoyment does not make an interest
contingent.
If the right is created immediately, it is vested.

Rameshwar v. Jot Ram (AIR 1976 SC)


The Supreme Court held that when the interest depends on an uncertain future event, it is
contingent, not vested.

Sita Ram v. Radha Bai (1968)


A transfer based on an illegal condition is void under Section 25.

Smt. Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan (1960)


When the condition precedent is not fulfilled, no interest arises in favour of the transferee.

Cooper v. Cooper (1874)


Laid down the basic principle of the Doctrine of Election:

“He who accepts a benefit under an instrument must adopt the whole of it.”
Ramcoomar Koondoo v. McQueen (1872)
Foundation case of ostensible ownership.
Privy Council held that real owner who clothes another with ownership cannot later deny it.

Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2007 SC)


Section 41 applies only when consent of real owner is proved.

Jumma Masjid, Mercara v. Kodimaniandra Deviah (1962 SC)


Supreme Court clearly explained the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel and held that
transferee can enforce the transfer when title is later acquired.

Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2007 SC)


Section 43 applies only if transferee acted in good faith and transfer was for consideration.

Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2007 SC)


Transferee pendente lite steps into the shoes of the transferor.

Twynes Case (1601)


Foundation case on fraudulent transfers.

Maddison v. Alderson (1883)


Origin of the doctrine of part performance.

Bellamy v. Sabine (1857)


Basis of Lis Pendens doctrine.

Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam (1977 SC)


Contract for sale does not create ownership; ownership passes only by registered sale deed.

Venkata Subba Rao v. Dandapani (1956)


Doctrine of marshalling protects subsequent purchaser.

Noakes & Co. Ltd. v. Rice (1902)


Any condition that prevents redemption is a clog.
Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti (1990)

Application of marshalling depends on existence of multiple securities.

Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012)

• Lease requires consideration and transfer of enjoyment.

Krishna v. Radha (1980 SC)

• Lease of immovable property does not transfer ownership.

Hemming v. Westminster (1883) – Right of easement must benefit dominant property, not
personal benefit.

Ram Kinkar v. Satya Charan (AIR 1939 Cal)


✔ Mortgagee has only right to sale, not possession

Right of Redemption – Section 60

Mortgagor can redeem at any time before foreclosure or sale.

Case:
Seth Ganga Dhar v. Shankar Lal (1958 SC)

You might also like