Facts of the Case

• ‘A’ represented to ‘B’ that he was the owner of a property.
• Relying on this representation, ‘B’ purchased the property from ‘A’.
• At the time of the sale, A actually had no title to the property and was not the lawful owner.
• However, after the sale, ‘A’ subsequently acquired valid ownership/title to the same property.
• Later, ‘A’ filed a suit to set aside the sale, arguing that:
  • At the time he sold the property, he had no ownership; hence the transfer was void and should be cancelled.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether A can deny his earlier representation and challenge the sale deed?
2. Whether the doctrine of estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act applies?
3. Whether the subsequent acquisition of title by A passes to B automatically?
4. Whether A can legally recover the property after having misrepresented ownership at the time of sale?

Legal Principles Supporting the Case Proceedings

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

This section states:

• When a person by declaration, act or omission intentionally leads another to believe something to be true and act upon that belief,
• That person cannot deny the truth of that statement later.

Application to the case:

• A represented himself as owner.
• B purchased relying on that representation.
• A cannot later deny his own statement.
• Hence, A is estopped from challenging the sale.

B. Doctrine of “Feeding the Grant by Estoppel” – Section 43, Transfer of Property Act (TPA)

This principle states:

• When a person transfers property claiming to be the owner but is not the owner at that time,
• The transfer is not void but remains inoperative until the transferor later acquires title.
• When he subsequently acquires the title, the title automatically passes to the transferee.

Case Law:

Jumma Masjid v. Kodimaniandra Deviah (AIR 1962 SC 847)

• The Supreme Court held that when the transferor gains subsequent title, that title feeds the earlier defective grant.
• The transferee gets good title by operation of law.

Result:

• A’s later-acquired title passes to B automatically.
• A cannot reclaim the property.

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

• A knowingly misrepresented himself as owner.
• Equity prevents A from benefitting by asserting his earlier fraud or misrepresentation.

Possible Judgment

A Cannot Succeed. His Suit Will Be Dismissed.

Reasons:

1. Estoppel (Section 115 Evidence Act):
   A represented ownership → B relied and purchased → A is now barred from denying ownership.
2. Feeding the Grant by Estoppel (Section 43 TPA):
   Even though A had no title at time of sale, once he later became the owner, the title automatically vested in B.
3. A cannot challenge the sale on the ground of his own earlier defect in title because:
   • He misrepresented his ownership.
   • He induced B to act on the belief.
   • Equity does not permit him to undo the sale.
4. Thus, the sale becomes valid from the moment A acquires title.
   B becomes the lawful owner.

About lawgnan

If you want deeper clarity on property disputes, estoppel, defective title transfers, or remedies available under the Indian Evidence Act and Transfer of Property Act, visit Lawgana.in today. Our platform offers expert legal insights, case explanations, judgment summaries, and practical solutions to help you understand your rights and legal options. Whether you are a law student, advocate, or someone facing a real-life property issue, Lawgana.in provides trustworthy, simplified, and updated legal guidance. Click now to explore more detailed articles and enhance your legal knowledge with professionally curated resources.