Jumma Masjid v Kodimaniandra Deviah (1962)

Transfer of Property · Feeding the Grant

Facts.

Persons who at the time held only a spes successionis [the bare chance of an heir succeeding] transferred property for consideration, representing that they were its present owners. The transferee took on the faith of that representation, and the transferors later acquired the very interest they had purported to convey.

Issue.

Does s.43 (feeding the grant by estoppel) save such a transfer, or is it void under s.6(a) as a transfer of a mere expectancy?

Held.

The Supreme Court held that s.43 applies where the transferee was misled by a representation of present ownership and took for consideration: the after-acquired interest then feeds the grant at the transferee’s option. Sections 6(a) and 43 operate in different fields, separated by the parties’ knowledge — s.6(a) governs only where both parties knew they were dealing in a mere chance; s.43 governs where the transferee was deceived into believing in a present title.

Why it matters.

It reconciles the apparent clash between s.6(a) and s.43 and is the leading authority on the Unit II topic of transfer by an unauthorised person who later acquires interest; knowledge is the dividing line.

📄 Full Transfer of Property notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · All landmark cases · All Transfer of Property topics