Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 41 – Transfer by ostensible owner – Consent of persons interested in the immovable property required – No specific pleading or evidence showing the consent, whether express or implied, of the interested persons – Relief granted in favour of defendants by the High Court relying on Section 41 was unwarranted. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Proviso to Section 41 – requires that the transferees take reasonable care to ascertain the transferor’s authority and act in good faith – Defendants failed to plead or prove these requirements – Hence, reliance on Section 41 by the High Court unwarranted. Held: Plaintiff had a registered Will dated 12.12.1988 (‘1988 Will’) bequeathing the suit land to him – Defendant No. 1 based on Will dated 16.05.1994 (‘1994 Will’) got his name mutated in the revenue records and subsequently transferred the land to other defendants – High Court confirmed the first Appellate Court’s finding that the 1988 Will was a valid and genuine document, and the 1994 Will was invalid and shrouded in suspicion – However, it extended the benefit of Section 41, TP Act, to the purchasers of the property from defendant No. 1 – Appeal against reliance on Section 41, TP Act, allowed.
Section 41, TP Act, requires the consent, express or implied, of persons interested in the immovable property – Plaintiff was an interested person as the 1988 Will was in his favour, but no pleadings or evidence showed that the defendants had obtained consent from him – Furthermore, the proviso to Section 41 requires transferees to take reasonable care and act in good faith, which also was not pleaded by defendants 2, 4, and 5 – Thus, the relief granted by the High Court under Section 41 was unwarranted, misplaced, and against the pleading and evidence on record. [Paras 12, 13].
Wills – If vendor has no rights under the invalid Will, purchasers could not acquire any better rights. Held: Once the High Court had determined the 1988 Will was genuine and the 1994 Will was invalid, no rights accrued to defendant no.1 under the invalid Will – Therefore, defendant no. 2, 4, and 5 could not obtain any better right, title, or interest than defendant no.1 – Appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants allowed. [Para 14].
Wills – Findings on validity of Will well-reasoned – A pure finding of fact – No interference
Held: Findings of the first Appellate Court and the High Court on validity of the 1994 Will being shrouded in suspicion are well-reasoned and based on evidence on record – It is a pure finding of fact, and no interference is merited – Appeal by defendant no.1 dismissed. [Para 15].
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankitesh Ojha, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.