RAM PYARE versus RAM NARAIN & OTHERS

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 918 · Decided: 15-02-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
918 
RAM PYARE 
v. 
RAM NARAIN & OTHFRS 
February 15, 1985 
(0. CHiNNAPPA REDDY, AND E. S. VENICATARAM!AH 
SABYASACHl MUKHARJI, JJ.) 
U. P. Zamindarl Abolition & 'Land Rtforms Act 1950, ss. 134 and 137 
-Vendor deposited money to 
acquire 
Bhumidarl rights-Land aold on 
-representation that he ·had such rights but before obtaining ctrtificate of 
Bhumldarl rights-Sale-Whether valld-V,ndee, whether entitled to ln•oke 
s. 43, T.P. Act. 
Transfer of Property Act, s. 43-Vendor depositing money for acquiring 
Bhumidari rights over land-Sale Deed executed making erroneous represtn· 
talion that vendor had Bhumidari rights-Certificate of Bhumldarl rights 
Issued subsequently-Whether'·· 43 applicable. 
Section 134(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms 
Act 1950 provides that if a Sirdar (tenure holder) deposits with the State 
Government an amount equal to ten times the land revenue payable on tho 
date of application for the land of which he is a Sirdar, he shall be entitled 
with effect from the date on which the amount has been deposited, to a 
declaration that be has acquired the rights mentioned in sec. 137 in respect 
of such land. Sec. 137 as it stood before amendment in 1962 provided that 
the Sirdar shall become a bhumidhar from the date of grant of a certi· 
ficate by tbei Assistant Collector under sub-sec. (1). 
The vendor Who had Sirdari rights over the disputed land deposited 
the required amount on 28th Oct. 
1961 u/s. 134 of the Act in order to 
acquire Bhumidari rights over the land. 
He sold the land to the appellant 
on the same day while he was granted certificate of Bhumidari rights 
u/s. 137 of the Act on 30th Oct. 1961. 
Thereafter, the respondents, sons 
of the vendor, filed a suit before the AdditiC'nal Munsiff for cancellation of 
Sale Deed executed by the vendor en 28th October, 1961. 
The suit was 
dismissed and the order was confirmed in first appeal. 
But, the High 
Court in second appeal filed by the respondents decreed tho suit, holding 
that the vendor bad no right to execute the sale deed on 28th October 1961, 
since be ao:::quired Bbumidbari rights w.e.f. 30th October 1961 i.e. from the 
date of grant of Bhumidari Certificate and pot froin the date Of deposi\ 
of the amount. 
i 
RAM PYARB V. RAM NARAIN 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : 
(I) Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act embodies 
a rule of estoppel and enacts that a persoa who makes a representation 
shall not be heard to allege the contrary as against a person who acts on 
that representation. 
It matter..6 not whether the transreror acled fraudu· 
lently or innocently in making the representation. 
What is material is 
that he did make a representation and the transferee bas acted on it. Where 
the transferee knew as a fact that the transferor did not possess the title 
which he represents be has, then he c_,onot b..: said to have acted on it 
when taking a transfer. 
Section 43 would then havl! no application and the 
tran~fcr will fail under s 6(a). 
But where the transferee does act on the 
representation, there is no reason why he should not have the benefit of the 
equitable doctrine embodied ins. 43, however 1 fraudulent the act of the 
transfer or might have been. [923 G-H; 924 C·D] 
919 
(2) In the instant case, the amount of drposit under sec. 134 of the 
Act was made on October 28, 1961 and il was on the same day that the 
sale deed was executed. 
lt is clrar that the vendor erroneously represented 
to 1he vendee that be was authorised to t1ansfcr the property and professed 
to tran~f1..r such property for co1,sideration. 
The very txecution of the 
sale deed on the same day '1.S the deposit of the requisite amount under 
stc. 134 is significant enough to establish that the sale deed was the result 
of an erroneous reprtsentation by the Vendor. 
It is also clear that the 
respondents who arc the sons of the vendor, cannot possibly claim to be 
tran~ferees in good faith which indeed they do not claim to be. 
Section 
43 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly applies to the situation. 
How-
ever, the conflict of opio1on which rose in the Allahabad High Court on the 
question whether a tendnt obtained 
Bhumidari rights from the date of 
deposit, the date of declaration or the date of certificate was resolved by 
the legislature which amended sec. 137t2) in 1962 and substituted the 
words "from the date on which the nn1ount referred to in s. J 34 has been 
deposited" for t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.