Rajes Kanta Roy v Santi Debi (1957)

Transfer of Property · Unborn & Perpetuity

Facts.

A father settled his properties, providing that they be managed and, after his debts and certain obligations were discharged, one son would take particular properties. The question was whether that son’s interest was vested from the outset or only contingent on the debts being cleared.

Issue.

Where the enjoyment or possession of an interest is postponed, is the interest contingent (s.21) or vested (s.19)?

Held.

The Supreme Court held the interest was vested. The law leans in favour of early vesting: an interest is treated as vested unless a clear contrary intention makes it contingent, and mere postponement of enjoyment or possession does not, by itself, make an interest contingent.

Why it matters.

It supplies the working presumption for the vested-versus-contingent question — postponed enjoyment is not postponed vesting — which decides whether an interest is heritable and transferable.

📄 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