LexAGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITIEE versus BANNAMA (D) BY LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 965
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITIEE
v.
BANNAMA (D) BY LRS.
(Civil Appeal No.3198 of 2007)
JULY 25, 2014
[RANJAN GOGOi AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]
Suit - For declaration of title and possession - The suit
property claimed to be 'Stridhan' of the plaintiff - It was sold
A
8
by her son without her knowledge and consent, after getting
C
the property mutated in his name - Suit decreed by trial court
- First appellate court held that her son (vendor) had title in
the property - High Court, in second appeal, decreed the suit
- Held: Trial court as well as High Court have decreed the suit .
by elaborately discussing the evidence while the first appellate
D
court failed to consider most relevant documents - Decree
confirmed.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s. 43 - Doctrine of feeding
the grant by estoppel - Applicability of - Held: As per the
E
doctrine, where the vendor selfs without title and subsequently
acquires title, right accrues to the purchaser to claim interest
in the property - In the present case the doctrine is not
applicable because the vendor did not acquire title in the
property during his life-time, and consequently his children
also did not acquire title through him.
Estoppel - Doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel -
Applicability of.
F
Respondent-Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title
G
and possession of land and declaration regarding sale-
deed. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property
was her 'Stridhan Property' standing in her name. She
being in ·old age allowed her son (defendant No.2) who
965
H
966
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 8 S.C.R.
A was also Vice President of the appellant-Society
(defendant No.1) to take care of the property. Without the
knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, respondent No.2
got the suit land mutated in his name and further sold the
same to defendant No.1- Society. Trial court decreed the
B suit directing delivery of possession to her. The court
also directed defendant No.2 to refund the purchase
amount to defendant No.1. First appellate court held that
defendant No.2 was the owner and thus had title to sell
the property. In second appeal, High Court reversed the
c finding of first appellate court and decreed the suit.
In appeal to this court, the appellant-defendant inter
alia contended that the plaintiff was not able to establish
her title on the suit property and that after death of
defendant No.2 at first appellate stage his children were
D substituted as legal representatives and on death of the
plaintiff during pendency of the present appeal, children
of defendant No.2 have been substituted as legal heirs
of plaintiff being her grand-children; and in view of this
fact, by applying the principle of feeding the grant by
E estoppel, the sale executed by defendant No.2 would
become validated by virtue of death of. plaintiff.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The first appellate court, while reversing the
F finding of the trial court, has not considered most
relevant documents which were relied upon by the trial
court in coming to the conclusion that the suit property
was owned by the plaintiff. The High Court elabol'ately
discussed the evidence adduced by the parties, both oral
G and documentary, and affirmed the finding of facts
recorded by the trial cburt. From perusal of the facts and
evidence available on record, there is·no perversity in the
judgment passed by the High Court. [Para 9] [972-B-C]
H
2.1. The doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel as
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MKTG. COMMITTEE. v.
967
BANNAMA (D) BY LRS.
contemplated under Section 43 of the Transfer of A
Property Act is based on the principle of law of estoppal.
It simply provides that when a person by fraudulent or
erroneous representation transfers certain immovable
property, claiming himself to be the owner of such
property, then such transfer will subsequently operate on
8
any interest which the transferor may acquire in such
property during which the contract of transfer subsists.
This doctrine knoY{n in English law has formed part of
Roman Dutch law, according to which where a granter
has purported to grant an interest iri the land which he
C
did not at the time possess, but subsequently acquires,
the benefit of his subsequent acquisition goes
automatically to the earlier grantee. In other words, where
a vendor sells without title in the property, but
subsequenExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.