Property lawFeeding the grantMadras High Court

Official Assignee Madras v Sampath Naidu

AIR 1933 Madras 79519331 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Transferor represented having title; transferred for consideration. Transferee was aware that transferor had no title at the time. Transferor later acquired title; transferee claimed benefit of S.43.
Issue
Whether S.43 requires the transferee to have acted in good faith.
Held
Good faith is a mandatory condition. A transferee who knows the transferor has no title at the time of transfer cannot invoke S.43. The doctrine protects only the innocent, not the colluding.
Principle
S.43 requires transferee to have acted in good faith; if transferee knew transferor had no title, S.43 does not protect
Cite this

Facts

  • Transferor represented having title; transferred for consideration
  • Transferee was aware that transferor had no title at the time
  • Transferor later acquired title; transferee claimed benefit of S.43

Issue

  1. Whether S.43 requires the transferee to have acted in good faith.

Held

  • Good faith is a mandatory condition. A transferee who knows the transferor has no title at the time of transfer cannot invoke S.43. The doctrine protects only the innocent, not the colluding.

Ratio decidendi

S.43 is an equitable doctrine based on estoppel. Estoppel protects those who are misled, not those who participate in the deception. Knowledge of the defect = no protection.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Cite to establish the good faith requirement in S.43. Key line: "S.43 protects only the innocent transferee, not one who knew of the defective title."

Cite this

Citation

Official Assignee Madras v Sampath Naidu AIR 1933 Madras 795

Reported: AIR 1933 Madras 795. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.