Category: Property ACT

Section 3 Interpretation Clause Immovable Property Immovable Property Stating simply Immovable property means the property which can not be moved from one place to another.  According to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act “immovable property” does not include standing timber, growing crops or grass. The definition of the term “immovable property” in this section is a negative definition. It is not a comprehensive, and exhaustive definition. It merely excludes standing timber, growing crops or grass. The positive definition of immovable property has been given in section 3(26) of General Clauses Act, 1897. According to this section immovable property includes land, benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. The definition given under the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 also (Babulal v Bhawani, 1912). Thus, the definition of immovable property given in Section 3 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and under the General Clauses Act, 1897 both explain the definition of immovable property that immovable property includes the following elements:   Land Benefits to arise out of land and Things attached to the earth: (a) things embedded in the earth; (b) things attached to what is so embedded in the earth; (c) things rooted to the earth except:- (i) standing timber, (ii) growing crops, or (ii) growing grasses   Land. Land means surface of the land, and what is below, upon and under the surface of the land. The soil, mud, water, pond and river are also the part and parcel of the land. Sub-soil of the land, minerals, coals and gold mines are immovable property. The space which are above the surface of the land is also immovable property because of the fact that space starts just above the surface of the land. Benefits to arise out. of land-The benefits to arise out of land are immovable property. Any right exercise by a person on a piece of land and gets certain profit that is his intangible-immovable property. The right to way on a land or right to use a land under lease or tenancy is Immovable property. The right of a tenant to live in the house of land-lord and right to catch the fish from the pond or river are also an immovable property. The rights of ferry on river or lake waters by boats or steamers are immovable property as water of river or lakes are benefits to arise out of land and thus immovable property. Likewise right to extract coal or gold from the mines are immovable property.   Profit à prendre Profit à prendre is a legal right that allows an individual to enter another person’s land and take some part of the land’s natural produce or resources. This could include things like minerals, timber, or even fish. Essentially, it is a right to extract and remove something from the land. For example, if someone has a profit à prendre to fish in a lake on someone else’s property, they have the right to enter the land, fish, and take the fish away. This right can be granted through an agreement or can be acquired by prescription (long-term use). A right to enter upon the land of another and carry a part of the produce is an instance of profits a pendre ie. benefit arising out of land, and therefore a grant in immovable property.(SHANTA BAI V STATE OF BOMBAY 1958 SC)   Ananda Behera v State of Orissa 1956 SC Case Summary: Context: Petitioners obtained oral licenses from the Raja of Parikud to catch and appropriate fish from Chilka Lake, paying significant sums and receiving receipts. This occurred before the Orissa Estates Abolition Act of 1951, which transferred ownership of the estate to the State of Orissa. Issue: The licenses were for periods after the estate vested in the state. The State of Orissa refused to recognize these licenses and sought to reclaim the fishery rights. Petitioners’ Argument: They claimed their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution were infringed, arguing the transactions were sales of future goods (fish), not immovable property. Court’s Decision: The court held that the right acquired was a license to enter the land and catch fish (profit à prendre), which is considered immovable property under the Transfer of Property Act and the General Clauses Act. Since the sale of this right was valued over 100 rupees and was not in writing or registered, it violated Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, meaning no title or interest passed to the petitioners. Fundamental Rights: The court found no fundamental rights were infringed as the state did not confiscate or take possession of the contract but merely refused to recognize it, which could lead to a contractual dispute but not a constitutional one. 3.Things attached to earth. -According to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 expression things attached to earth’ means (i) rooted in the earth, as in the case of trees and shrubs, (ii) embedded in the earth, as in the case of walls or buildings; or (iii) attached to what is so embedded for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of to which it is attached. Things rooted to the earth-Rooted in earth as in the case of trees and shrubs. The trees, plants shrubs and herbs are rooted in the earth firmly they are called immovable property. When they are cut down their position are changed and they come under the category of movable property. But according to Section 3 of the TPA as an exception to this general rule are standing timber, growing crops and grass are movable properties. (ii) Things embedded in the earth– As in the case of walls or buildings which are fixed in the earth and become part of the land. Electricity poles, houses, buildings, walls are immovable properties because they are things embedded in the earth. Where the things are just placed…

Read More “Immovable property, profit a prendre and doctrine of fixtures” »

Transfer for benefit of unborn person sec. 13 TPA Provisions regarding transfer of property for the benefit of unborn persons have been laid down in Section 13 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Accordingly sec.13 reads as,  “where on a transfer of property, an interest is created therein for the benefit of a person not in existence on date of the transfer, subject to a prior interest created by the same transfer, the interest created for the benefit of such person shall not take effect, unless it extends to the whole of the remaining interest of the transferor in the property.” Illustration A transfers property of which he is the owner to B, in trust for A and his intended wife successively for their lives and after the death of survivor for the eldest son of the intended marriage for life and after his death for A’s second son. The interest so created for the benefit of the eldest son does not take effect, because it does not extend to the whole of A’s remaining interest in the property. Transfer for the benefit of unborn person.–    According to Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the general rule is that property can be transferred from one living person to another. However, if someone wishes to transfer property to an unborn person, unborn is a person who is not in existence at the time of the transfer not even in the mother’s womb, such a transfer is also possible, subject to the conditions and methods provided in Section 13 of the Act.. A transfer cannot be made directly to an unborn person. Such a transfer can only be made by the machinery of trusts. For the benefit of the trustees being the transferee who held the property for the benefit of the unborn person. Hence, it is clear that a property, cannot be transferred to an unborn person directly. Such transfer can be made by the machinery of trust. Procedure of  Transfer to an unborn As per section 13 of the Act, for a transfer of benefit of unborn; (i) a life estate has to be created in favour of living person or persons and, (ii) an absolute interest must be transferred in favour of the unborn. The person in whose favour a life estate has been created shall possess and enjoy it till the time he/she is alive. If during such person’s life time the person in whose favour an absolute interest has been created (i.e. the unborn) is born, the title in the property shall immediately vest in him/her even though he/she would get possession of the property only upon the death of life holder. If the unborn is not born during the life time of the life holder, the property shall be enjoyed by the life holder during his life time after which it would revert back to the transferor or his heirs as the case maybe. Example In a case where A transfers his property in 1960 to B for life and then to C for life and finally to C’s son S, who is unborn at this time. Both B and C are alive at this time the property would be first possessed by B for his life and then by C. And after C the property shall be transferred absolutely to the S, who must be in existence at or before the death of the C. S is born in 1970. At this time, he takes a vested interest in the property but the possession of it is postponed till the death of C (which say for instance took place in 1975) If S died in 1974, then because he had a vested interest in the property since 1970 i.e. when he was born, the property would after the death of C go to the heirs of S. But if S was not born till 1975 (i.e. when the last life estate in favour of C ended) then the property would revert back to A or his heirs as the case maybe. Thus it is important for a valid transfer under section 13, for an absolute interest to be created in favour of unborn (i.e. a life estate cannot be made in favour of unborn) and for the unborn to come into existence before the life estate created in favour of someone else comes to an end.   According to Section 13 a property can be transferred for the benefit of an unborn person subject to the following conditions:   Prior interest: Transfer for the unborn person must be preceded by a life interest in favour of a person in existence at the date of the transfer. The property which is to be transferred must vest in some person between the date of the transfer and coming into existence of the unborn person. The interest of the unborn person must, therefore, be in every case preceded by a prior interest and before termination of prior preceding interest, the unborn person must come in existence otherwise it would not vest in the unborn person. 2. Only absolute interest may be transferred in favour of the unborn person. It means property can not be transferred to an unborn with life interest or without power of alienation.   We have the following propositions: (i) the intermediary person living at the time of the transfer is to be given only life interest. It means giving him only the right of enjoyment and possession. He has to preserve the property like a trustee during the life.time on behalf of the unborn person. (ii) The unborn must come into existence before the death of the.person holding property for the life. After the death of last living person in other words after the termination of the preceding interest the unborn person comes into existence, he cannot succeed to get the property. Because of the fact after termination of life interest, the property cannot remain in abeyance.and cannot wait…

Read More “Transfer for benefit of unborn person sec. 13 TPA” »