Mohan, who separated from his father Krishan, sells to Raghav three fields, X, Y and Z, representing that Mohan is authorized to transfer the same. Of these fields, Z does not belong to Mohan, it having been retained by

CS Executive · Economic and Commercial Laws · PYQS · June 2021
Mohan, who separated from his father Krishan, sells to Raghav three fields, X, Y and Z, representing that Mohan is authorized to transfer the same. Of these fields, Z does not belong to Mohan, it having been retained by Krishan on the partition, but on Krishan's dying, Mohan as heir obtains field Z. Raghav had not rescinded the contract. Discuss if Raghav can require Mohan to deliver field Z to him.

Answer & Explanation:

Where, a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer certain immoveable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists. (Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act) This is known as the Doctrine of feeding the grant by Estoppel. Nothing in this Section shall impair the right of transferees in good faith for consideration without notice of the existence of the said option. So based on the Doctrine of Estoppel in his case, Raghav can require Mohan to transfer field Z to him after Krishna's death as he has not rescinded the contract.

Topics: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic