Holding

Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act is attracted, rendering the vendor estopped and the sale deed valid despite the later issuance of the bhumidari certificate.

Summary

The vendor, Matbar Mal, who held sirdari rights, deposited the amount required under Section 134 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act on 28 October 1961 to acquire bhumidari rights and on the same day executed a sale deed in favour of Ram Pyare. A bhumidari certificate was issued only on 30 October 1961. The vendor’s sons filed suit to cancel the sale, arguing that the vendor had no authority to sell until the certificate was issued. The High Court allowed the suit, holding that the vendor’s rights vested only on the certificate date. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, which creates an estoppel when a transferor makes a representation about title that the transferee relies upon, applied despite the vendor’s erroneous representation. The Court held that Section 43 does apply, that the vendor’s representation, though erroneous, estopped him, and that the sale deed was valid. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act applies when a transferor makes an erroneous representation about title and the transferee relies on it.
From which date a sirdar acquires bhumidari rights under the pre‑1962 provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act – the date of deposit, declaration or issuance of the certificate.
Effect of the 1962 amendment to Section 137 on cases where deposit and certificate were on different dates.

Legislation cited

Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 43
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950s. 134, s. 137

Subjects

Section 43estoppelZamindari Abolition Actbhumidari rightssale deedproperty lawland reformrepresentation

Judgment

918
A
RAM PYARE

v.
RAM NARAIN & OTHFRS
B i
February 15, 1985

(0. CHiNNAPPA REDDY, AND E. S. VENICATARAM!AH
SABYASACHl MUKHARJI, JJ.)

c 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
D 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
E 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).
F
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
G 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\
H of the amount.
RAM PYARB V. RAM NARAIN 919

Allowing the appeal to this Court, A

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
B
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] c
(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
D
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
E
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 the words, ufrom t_he date thereof." Unfo~tunately the
amending Act, which in the case of certain amendments provided that the
substituted words shall be deemed always to have been so substituted, did F
not so provide io the case of the amendment of sec. 137(2) of the U.P.
Zamiadari Abolition Act. The result was that in cases where the amount
had been deposited and a certificate obtained on different dates before the
coming into force of the 1962 amending Act, the position still was that the
tenure holder acquired bhumidar i rights with effect only from the date of
issuance of the bhumidari certific"te. [922 E-H; 921 F·H; 922A)
G
Ram Sawarup v. Dtputy Collector, ConsolidaJ/on & Ors. I.LR. 1971 (!)
All. 698, approxed.

Jumma Masj/d v. Kodimaniandra Dev/ah, AIR 1962 SC 847=[1962]
Supp. 2 S.C.R. 554, Offtcia/ Asrignee, Madras v. Sanpath Naidu 65 MAD
LJ 588 and Dhani Ram v. Jokhu Stcond Appeal NO, 4276 of 1964 tdecided
by All~habad Hish CoQrt referred to.
p
920 SUPRllMll COURT REPORTS (1985] 2 S.C.R.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1994 (N)
of 1971.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26. 11 . 70 of the High
Court of Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 4540 of 1964.

B 0. P. Verma for the Appellant. t ••

J. M. Khanna and R. A. Gupta for the Respondents.

S. N. Kackar appeared as amicus curiae.

·c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CmNNAPPA REDDY, J. Matbar Mal, who had Sirdari rights
over the disputed land, deposited an amount equal to ten times the
land revenue payable on the land in order to acquire Bhumidhari
rights. This he could do under sec. 134 of the U. P. Zamindari
D Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as it then stood. The deposit
was made on October 28, 1961. On the same day, Matbar Mal sold
the land to the present appellant. On October 30, 1961, a certificate
to the effect that he had acquired Bhumidhari rtgh ts was issued to
Mathar Mal under sec. 137 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950. Thereafter the sons of Matbar Mal filed
the suit out of which the present appeal arises for cancellation of
E the deed of sale executed by Matbar Mal on October 28, 1961 in
favour of the defendants. 1he suit was dismissed by the court of
the Additional Munsif and the appeal by the plaintiffs was also
dismissed by court of the Temporaries Civil & Sessions Judge,
Deoria. On second appeal by the plaintiffs, however, a single judge
of the High Court of Allahabad allowed the appeal following a
F Division Bench judgment of the same court in Dhani Ram v. Jokhu
(Second Appeal No. 4276 of 1964) and decreed the suit. The defen.
dant has preferred this appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the
Constitution.

The ground on which the second appeal was allowed by the
G High Court was that the Sirdar who deposited the requisite amount
acquired Bhumidhari rights not from the date of deposit but from
the date of the .. grant of the Bhumidhari certificate, and, therefore,
Matbar Mal who executed the sale deed on October 28, 1961 had
no right to execute the same on that day as he acquired Bhumidhari
rights with effect from October 30, 1961 only, which was the date
ff of the iss11ance of the Bhuwi\ih&ri cerlilicate.
RAM PYARE v. RAM NAR4IN (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 92j

Before the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, A
1950 was amended in 1962, sec. 134 in so far as it is relevant stood
as follows:

"134 (I) if a sirdar belonging to the class mentioned in
,.. ~ i-- cl. (a) of s. 131 pays or offers to pay to the credit of the
State Government an amount equal to ten times the land B
revenue payable or deemed to be payable on the date of
application for the land of which he is the sirdar, he shall,
upon an application duly made in that behalf to an Assis-
tant Collector, be entitled, with effect from the date on
which the amount has been deposited, to a declaration that
he has acquired the rights mentioned in sec. 137 in respect c
of such land .......... "
• •
Section 137 in so far as it is relevant then stood as follows:
"137 (I) If the application has been duly made and the
Assistant Collector is satisfied that the applicant is entitled
to the declaration mentioned in sec. 134. h~ shall grant a D
certificate to that effect.

(2) Upon the grant of the certificate nnder sub-sec. (I)
the sirdar shall from the date thereof-
E
(a) become and be deemed to be a bhumidhar of the
holding or the share in respect of which the certificate has
been granted, and (b) ........................... "

There was some conflict of opinion in the Allahabad High
Court on the question whether the tenant depositing the amount F
equivalent to ten times the land revenue and obtaining a Bhumidhari
certificate, obtained Bhumidhari rights from the date of deposit, the
date of declaration or the date of certificate. The conflict was
resolved by the legislature which enacted Act 21 of 1962 which
amended sec. 137 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act among
other provisions of various other enactments. In sec. 137 sub-sec. 0
2 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act, for the words "from the
date thereof" were substituted the words and figures "from the date
on which the amount referred to in sec. 134 has been deposited".
Unfortunately the amending Act, which in the case of certain
amendments provided that the substituted words shall be deemed
always to have been s:i substituted, did not so provide in the case of
the amendment of sec. 137 (2) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition H
,.

922 SUPREME COURT R~Poats h985] 2 s.c.i.
4
...
A Act. The result was tint in cases where the amount had been
deposited and a certificate obtained on different dates before the
coming into force of the 1962 amending Act, the position still was
that the tenure holder acquired bhumidari rights with effect only
from the date of issuance of the bhumidhari certificate. It was so
held in D/wni Ram v. Jokhu (supra) by a Division Bench of the
B Allahabad High Court. It was following this decision in Dhani
Ram's case that the karned single Judge of the High Court in the
present case allowed the second appeal.

The decision in Dhani Ram v. Jokhu was approved by ano-
ther Division Bench of the same court consisting of S. D. Khare and
c R. B. Misra, JJ in Ram Swarup >s. Deputy Director, Consolidation
and Ors.(1) In the latter case the learned judges expressed the
further opinion that in a situation !'kc the one before them, there ••
was no reason why recourse should not he had to sec. 43 of the
Transfer of Property Act to feed the title as it were, if the necessary
conditions were fulfilled. We agree with the reasoning of the
D learned judges in Ram Sivarup v. D?puty Director, Consolidation
(supra). In that case, the matter was remanded to the Deputy
Director of Consolidation to consider the question of the applicability
of sec. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act and proceed to dispose of
the matter in accordance with law. In the present case, the facts
speak for themselves and we do not think that it is necessary to
E
remand the case to the lower courts for a decision on the question
of the applicability of sec. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. The
amount of deposit under sec. 134 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition
Act was made on Ocrober 28, 1961 and it was on the same day that
the sale deed was executed by Matbar Mal. It is clear that Matbar
F Mal erroneously represented to the vendee that he was authorised to
transfer the property and professed to transfer such property for
consideration. The very execution of the sale deed on the same
day as the deposit of the requisit: amount under sec 13+ is signi-
ficant enough to establish that the sale deed was the result of an
erroneous representation by Matbar Mal. It is also clear that the
present plaintiffs who are the sons of the vender, Matbar Mal cannot
G possibly claim to be transferees in good faith which indeed they do
not claim to be. Section 43 clearly applies to the situation. The
learned counsel for the respondents however attempted to discla'm
the applicabiJ:ty of sec. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act by
H referring to Jumma Ma'}id v. Kodimaniandra Deviah (2). He
J•. !LR 197t (I) ALL. 698,
2. AIR 1962 SC 847 =[1962] SUPP 2 s.c.R. 554.
RAM PYAl!.E v. !!.AM NARAiN (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 923

invited our attention to the following observations of the learned A
judges:

"Now the compelling reason urged by the appellant
for reading a further expeption in sec. t3 is that if it is con-
r,' strued as applicable to transfers by persons who have only
spes succession is at the date of transfer, it would have the B
effect of nullifying sec. 6 (a'. But sec. 6 (a) and S. 43
relate to two different subjects and there is no necessary
conflict between them. Sec 6 (a) deals within certain kinds
of interests in property mentioned therein, and prohibits a
transfer simpliciter of those interests. Sec. 43 deals with
representations as to title made by a transferer who had no c
title at the time of transfer, and provides that the transfer
shall faston itself on the title which the transferer subse-
quently acquires. Section 6 (a) enacts a rule of substantive
law, while s. 43 enacts a rule of estoppal which is one of
evidence. The two provisions operate on different fields,
D
and under different conditions, and we see no ground for
reading a conflict between them or for cutting down the
ambit of the one by reference to the other. In our opinion,
-> both of them can be given full effect on their own terms, in
their respective spheres. To hold that transfers by persons
who have only a spes successionis at the date of transfer are E
not within the protection afforded by s. 43 would destroy
its utility to a large extent."

We are unable to see in what manner these observations can
possibly assist the respondents. In the same decision, it has been
observed later, referring to the decision of the Madras High Court
in O.fficialAssignee, Madras v. Sanpath Naidull). F

"This reasoning is open to the criticism that it ignores
the principle underlying s. 43. That section embodies, as
already stated, a rule of estoppel and enacts that a person
who makes a representation shall not b< heard to allege the
contrary as against a person who acts on that represent- G
ation. It is immaterial whether the transferer acts bona
fide or fraudulently in making the representation. It is only
material to find out whether in fact the transferee has been
misled. It is to be noted that when the decision under
consideration was given, the relevant words of s. 43 were,
ll
(I) 6S Mad, LJ, 588.
924 SPiUlMB couilt Rl!POil.TS i198sj 2 s.c.i.
A "where a person erroneously represents", and now, as amen-
ded by Act 20 of 1929, they are "where a person fraudu-
lently or erroneously represents", and that emphasises that
for the purpose of the section it matters no whether the
transferer acted fraudulently or innocently in making the
representation, and that what is material is that he did
B make a representation and the transferer has acted on it.
where the transferee knew as a fact that the transferer did
not possess the title which he represents he has, then he
cannot be said to have acted on it when taking a transfer.
Section 43 would then have no application and the transfer
will fail under s. 6 (a). But where the transferee does act
c on the.representation, there is no reason why he should not
have the benefit of the equitable doctrine embodied in s.
43, however, fradulent the act of the transferer might have
been."

In the circumstances of the present case, we have no doubt
D that the provisions of sec. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act are
clearly attracted and that is sufficient to non-s.iit the plaintiffs. The
appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs. The judgment of the High
Court is set aside and that of the lower appellate court. restored.
Shri S. N. Kacker, Senior Advocate, was kind enough to assist us
as amicus curiae. We are gratefull to him for his assistance.

M.LA. Appeal a/lowed.