Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024 | Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section 54 - Ownership of an immovable property does not get transferred until the sale deed is registered. Mere transfer of possession and payment of consideration will not transfer ownership, unless the sale deed is registered. Sanjay Sharma v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd; 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1054Section 54 - In the case concerning the auction sale of a property conducted under the SARFAESI Act, the appellant, as the highest bidder, purchased the property at an auction conducted by the Bank (respondent No.1) and was issued a sale certificate. Respondent No.2 challenged the auction, claiming prior unregistered transactions and possessory rights over the property. The High Court ruled in favor of respondent No.2, setting aside the auction and sale certificate. The Supreme Court held that respondent No.2's claims were based on unregistered documents, which do not constitute valid conveyance under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Bank, having conducted the auction in compliance with the SARFAESI Act, was not deemed to have knowledge of these unregistered transactions. The Court found no irregularity or illegality in the auction process that would warrant setting aside the sale. The Appellate Tribunal's order in favor of the appellant was restored, and the High Court's order was set aside. The Bank was directed to hand over possession to the appellant, and respondent No.2 was allowed to withdraw any deposited amounts. Appeal allowed; High Court's order set aside. Sanjay Sharma v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd; 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1054Section 53A - Whether the defendants were entitled to protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, based on an unregistered sale agreement - Whether the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court were perverse or erroneous. Held, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming the judgments of the High Court, First Appellate Court, and Trial Court, which decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property. The defendants failed to prove the execution of the alleged sale agreement dated 25-11-1968 and their possession based on it. The courts below found consistent evidence establishing that the defendants had no lawful possession and had illegally occupied the property. The High Court correctly held that the defendants did not satisfy the prerequisites for invoking protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 53A, being an exception to the usual requirements of registration and writing, must be strictly construed and could not apply in this case due to lack of proof of the agreement and part-performance. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act provides protection to a transferee in possession only if the essential conditions, including the existence of a written and signed contract and acts of part-performance, are fulfilled. The burden of proving readiness and willingness to perform under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, lies on the party seeking specific performance or protection under Section 53A. Special Leave Petition dismissed. Giriyappa v. Kamalamma, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1038Section 106 - Constitution of India - Article 254 - Applicability of - to resolve inconsistencies between Central and State legislation under the Concurrent List - Validity of a notice of ejectment issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as amended by Parliament in 2002, vis-à-vis an earlier amendment made by the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature in 1954. Held, the Parliamentary amendment to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, with effect from 31.12.2002, supersedes the earlier amendment made by the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature in 1954. This is due to the doctrine of implied repugnancy under Article 254(1) and the supremacy of Parliamentary law as provided under the proviso to Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The Court directed the High Court to consider the tenant's revision petition on its merits rather than awaiting the decision of a larger Bench on a related reference. The impugned order of the High Court was set aside. The High Court was requested to decide the case on its merits expeditiously. Naeem Bano Alias Gaindo vs Mohammad Rahees, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1011Section 52 - The Courts can set aside a sale transaction, which was carried out in violation of its directions, as void in the exercise of its contempt jurisdiction. The Court held that although a sale transaction carried out during the pendency of court proceedings (pendente lite) would not become void due to the operation of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Court can reverse such a sale transaction if it was done in contempt of judicial directions. Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 991Section 127 - Gift deed which is conditioned upon perpetual...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024 | Transfer of Property Act, 1882

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags