Doctrine of Feeding the Grant by Estoppel

Rule

Under S.43, where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer immovable property and professes to transfer it for consideration, the transfer operates, at the transferee's option, on any interest the transferor later acquires in that property. This is called feeding the grant by estoppel: the later title "feeds" the earlier defective transfer. The transferee must exercise the option while the contract of transfer subsists.

The flowchart shows when the grant is fed.

flowchart TD
  A["Transferor represents he has title<br/>(falsely / erroneously) + takes consideration"]
  A --> B["Transfers property to a<br/>good-faith transferee"]
  B --> C["At the time, transferor had<br/>NO / defective title"]
  C --> D["Transferor LATER acquires<br/>that very interest"]
  D --> E["At the transferee's option, the transfer<br/>operates on that interest (Jumma Masjid)"]
  A --> X["Open sale of a mere hope: void (S.6(a)).<br/>But if he CLAIMED present title,<br/>S.43 still applies (Jumma Masjid 1962)"]

Requirements

When S.43 applies and when it does not

Illustrations

1. The grant is fed

• Facts: Ravi tells Suresh he owns a plot in Madhapur, though he does not, and sells it to him for Rs.15 lakhs. Two years later Ravi inherits that very plot from his uncle.
• Result: Suresh can require the plot. The sale operates on Ravi's new title (S.43).
• Why: Ravi represented present title and took the price, so he is estopped from denying the sale.

2. Open sale of a hope

• Facts: Ravi tells Suresh, "I am selling you my expected share in my father's property." His father is alive. Later the father dies and Ravi inherits.
• Result: S.43 does not apply. The sale is void under S.6(a).
• Why: Suresh knew he was buying only a hope. There was no representation of present title for S.43 to act on.

3. Expectant heir who claims present title

• Facts: Same Ravi, but he tells Suresh, "I own this land now," though he is only his father's expected heir. He later inherits.
• Result: S.43 applies.
• Why: S.6(a) and S.43 work in different fields. S.43 rests on the representation of present title (Jumma Masjid).

4. Honest mistake

• Facts: Meena believes her father has given her a plot, but the deed was never registered. She sells it to Kavitha. Later her father executes a proper registered deed in Meena's favour.
• Result: S.43 applies. Meena's new title feeds the sale to Kavitha.
• Why: S.43 covers erroneous as well as fraudulent representations.

5. A later buyer without notice

• Facts: Ravi, without title, sells to Suresh in 2020 but Suresh does not take possession. Ravi acquires title in 2023 and in 2024 sells to Deepak, who pays the price and has no notice of the earlier sale.
• Result: Deepak is protected. Suresh can sue Ravi for damages and the return of the price.
• Why: S.43 does not impair the rights of a transferee in good faith for consideration without notice of the option.

Statutory illustration to S.43

• Facts: A, separated from his father B, sells fields X, Y and Z to C, representing that he may transfer them. Z belongs to B. B dies and A inherits Z.
• Result: C, not having rescinded the sale, may require A to deliver Z.
• Why: The sale operates on the interest A later acquires.

Key Cases

Jumma Masjid, Mercara v Kodimaniandra Deviah AIR 1962 SC 847

• Facts: In 1920 three reversioners sold properties to Ganapathi, reciting that they had already inherited them. In fact a widow, Gangamma, held them until her death in 1933, when the reversioners succeeded. One of them then released his half share to the mosque.
• Held: S.43 applied, so the 1920 sale operated on the interest the reversioners acquired in 1933, and the later release to the mosque failed. S.43 and S.6(a) operate in different fields.
• Principle: Where a transferor represents a present interest but really has only a spes successionis, the transferee who took the transfer on the faith of that representation and for consideration gets the benefit of S.43.

Official Assignee of Madras v Sampath Naidu AIR 1933 Mad 795 (Madras High Court)

• Facts: A presumptive reversioner, knowing he had nothing but a chance of succession, mortgaged the property by deeds reciting a present interest. He later succeeded.
• Held: The substance, not the recitals, decides. The mortgages transferred a spes successionis, were void under S.6(a), and S.43 could not validate them.
• Principle: This was the older view that S.43 cannot cure a transfer forbidden by S.6(a). The Supreme Court rejected it in Jumma Masjid (1962). Study it as the view that was overruled.

Distinctions

Recall Check

1. What is the effect when a person who wrongly represented authority subsequently acquires the property?
2. When does S.43 feed a transfer by someone who held only a spes successionis, and when is it void under S.6(a)?
3. What is the distinction between "fraudulent" and "erroneous" representation under S.43?
4. Whose rights does S.43's second paragraph protect?

Flashcards