‘A’ intentionally and falsely misleads ‘B’ to believe that ‘A’ is the owner of the land. Relying on the statement of ‘A’, ‘B’ purchases the land and pays for it. The land afterwards becomes the property of ‘A’. ‘A’ files a suit to set aside the sale on the ground that at the time of the sale, he had no title. Can he succeed? Discuss.

Facts of the Case

• A intentionally makes a false representation to B that he is the owner of a particular land.
• Believing this representation to be true, B purchases the land from A and pays the full consideration.
• At the time of the sale, A had no title to the land.
• Later, A subsequently acquires ownership/title to the same land.
• After acquiring the title, A files a suit to set aside the earlier sale, arguing that:
  • At the time of sale he had no title.
  • Therefore, the transaction was invalid and should be cancelled.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether A, after falsely representing ownership, can later deny his representation and challenge the sale.
2. Whether A is estopped from denying his earlier statement under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act.
3. Whether the subsequent acquisition of title by A automatically passes to B under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act.
4. Whether equity allows A to take advantage of his own misrepresentation.

Legal Principles Covered

A. Section 115 – Estoppel (Indian Evidence Act, 1872)

This section says:

• When one person makes another believe something to be true,
• And the other person acts upon that belief,
• The person who made the representation cannot later deny it.

Application to the case:

• A falsely represented himself as owner.
• B relied on this and purchased the land.
• Therefore, A is estopped from denying that he was the owner at the time of sale.
• A cannot challenge the transaction based on his own falsehood.

B. Section 43 – Transfer of Property Act (Feeding the Grant by Estoppel)

This section provides the doctrine of:

“Feeding the grant by estoppel”, meaning:

• If a person transfers property he does not own,
• But later acquires the title,
• The title automatically passes to the transferee, if the transfer was for consideration.

Case Law:
Jumma Masjid v. Kodimaniandra Deviah (AIR 1962 SC 847)
The Supreme Court held:

• When a vendor acquires title later, it feeds the earlier defective transfer.
• The buyer gets a valid title by operation of law.

Application:

• A transferred property he did not own.
• Later he became the owner.
• His later-acquired title automatically benefits B.

C. Principle of Equity: No one can take advantage of his own wrong

A intentionally misled B.
Equity prohibits A from using his own misrepresentation to:

• Undo the sale
• Or reclaim the land.

Possible Judgment

A cannot succeed.
His suit to set aside the sale will be dismissed.

Reasoning:

1. Estoppel applies (Section 115 Evidence Act):
   A misrepresented ownership; B acted upon it.
   A is now barred from denying his own statement.
2. Title passed to B under Section 43 TPA:
   A’s subsequently acquired title automatically passes to B.
   The sale becomes valid the moment A acquires ownership.
3. Equity disallows A’s claim:
   A cannot take advantage of his own fraud or false representation.
4. A has no legal right to cancel the sale:
   A’s later acquisition of title perfects B’s earlier purchase.

About lawgnan

If you want to understand complex legal doctrines like estoppel, misrepresentation, and feeding the grant by estoppel in simple, practical language, visit lawgana.in today. Our platform provides clear explanations, expert guidance, and case-based insights to help you strengthen your legal knowledge. Whether you are a law student, advocate, or someone seeking clarity on property disputes, Lawgana offers reliable and accessible legal content. Stay updated with essential concepts, explore detailed case analyses, and empower yourself with accurate legal understanding. Visit lawgana.in now to learn smarter, stay informed, and master legal principles with ease.