Topic
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 governs the conveyance of immovable property in India, including sale, gift, mortgage, and lease, and defines rights and obligations of parties under registered and unregistered instruments.
Delhi HC held that the defendant-wife could reside in the suit property under Section 39 TPA, noting that a Mohammedan will bequeathing over one-third share needs heir consent and an unregistered surrender declaration is void. This clarifies spousal residence rights in property disputes.
The Delhi High Court held that a tenant’s unequivocal denial of the landlord-tenant relationship triggers forfeiture under Section 111(g) TPA, overcoming the Section 50 DRC Act bar. The decision lets landlords regain possession on repayment of the security deposit, impacting tenants who deny the tenancy.
A transfer after execution notice does not defeat execution under Section 52 TPA, Delhi HC upheld the auction sale of an undivided share for ₹84.5 lakh. The ruling confirms pendente lite transfers cannot stall execution, affecting judgment debtors and transferees.
MPHC held lis pendens binds subsequent purchasers, affirming specific performance and ordering execution of sale deed in plaintiff’s favor despite bona fide purchase, confirming Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act overrides innocent buyer defenses.
The Calcutta High Court held that filing an eviction suit itself is a notice to quit under Section 106 TPA. This restores landlords’ right to possession and allows recovery of mesne profits without a separate notice.
The Uttarakhand High Court held that possession based on an unregistered contract for sale is merely permissive and cannot confer adverse possession unless the plaintiff specifically pleads hostile animus. The ruling clarifies that mere contractual possession does not trigger Section 54 TPA protections, affecting land claimants relying on informal sale agreements.
Bombay High Court clarifies that caretaker agreements were licenses, not leases, and confirms its power under Order XLI Rule 33 in Article 227 petitions, directing mesne profit enquiry for long-term occupation.
The court held that limitation under Article 58 for challenging registered settlement deeds begins from the registration date, as Section 3 TPA deems constructive notice to all parties. A plaintiff residing with the executants cannot claim ignorance of deeds registered in 2004 and 2009 until filing suit in 2024. The ruling reinforces that registered documents impart immediate legal knowledge regardless of actual awareness.
The Delhi High Court restored a specific performance suit dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d), holding an unregistered agreement to sell admissible under Section 49's proviso where full consideration was paid and possession delivered. Stamp duty deficiency is curable by paying a 10x penalty, ensuring the suit proceeds on merits rather than technical dismissal.
A tenant who unequivocally denies the landlord's title and claims ownership forfeits the lease under Section 111(g) TPA, losing Delhi Rent Control Act protection. The court upheld the decree for possession, rent arrears (Rs. 20/month at 9% interest), and mesne profits (Rs. 1,000/month), confirming that title repudiation extinguishes all statutory tenant safeguards.
The Madras HC held that a claim for refund of a Rs 2 lakh advance under a 2004 sale agreement is barred once the three-year period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act lapses. Since Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act creates a charge only after sale completion, buyers must sue within that window or forfeit the advance.
The Delhi High Court overturned two district-court possession orders, ruling that an unregistered agreement to sell cannot be invoked to obtain possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and does not attract the protection of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This limits claimants from using informal sale agreements to secure possession of property.
An agreement to sell a premises and receipt of part-payment cannot by themselves terminate an existing lease; only a surrender under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act ends tenancy. This clarifies that landlords must obtain a formal surrender before evicting tenants, protecting occupants in similar sale-related disputes.
The Madras High Court held that the 2008 settlement deed is a valid gift under the Transfer of Property Act and that any unilateral cancellation of the deed is void. By setting aside the lower court’s dismissal, the court clarified that possession is not required for a gift’s validity, affecting parties to settlement and gift deeds in Tamil Nadu.
A gift deed that obliges the donee to maintain the donor and his spouse becomes void if that obligation is breached. The Himachal High Court reinstated the trial court’s decree, confirming that the donor’s right to revoke the gift under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act stands even after the deed’s execution. This clarifies that beneficiaries of conditional gifts must honour maintenance promises or risk losing title.