Law of Charges

Pragya Mishra Hidayatullah National Law University Raipur (Chhattisgarh) pragyamishra.hnlu@gmail.com All properties either movable or immovable constantly remain in the state of transfer and no society exists without such activity. A transfer may be by way of sale, exchange, gift, lease, mortgage or actionable claim. Prior to the year 1882 no law existed which really governed activities of transfer of properties in India and in the absence of statutory enactments English Law was adopted which was not satisfactory due to entirely different social conditions prevailing in India from that of England. Since the year 1882 the law relating to the transfer of properties by the act of the parties is codified in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Act contains provisions defining as to what is transfer of the property, what may be the transfer, person competent to transfer, conditions restraining the transfer, transfer for the benefit of unborn person, transfer in perpetuity for the benefit of public, vested interest, contingent interest, conditional transfer, etc. It provides for sales, mortgages, charges and leases of immovable properties, exchanges, gifts, and transfer of actionable claim. Though not exhaustive, this act encompasses important transactions of properties. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of Law of Charges based on Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act ; to extensively examine the - Distinction between Charge and Mortgage, Charge and Lien ; to give a detailed account of the Constitutes of Charge ; Kinds of charge and lastly to draw conclusion about the efficacy and importance of Law of Charges . Section 100 and 101 defines the term "Charges" in Transfer of Property Act. By act of parties or by operation of law, an immovable property of one person is made security for the payment of money to another. This transaction does not amount to a mortgage, but it is called Charge on the property by the latter person. All the provisions relating to simple mortgage are applicable to Charge. The above provisions do not apply to the charge of a trustee on the trust property for expenses properly incurred in the execution of the trust. The Charges cannot be enforced against any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of charge. Section 100- Where immovable property of one person is by act of parties or operation of law made security for the payment of money to another, and the transaction does not amount to a mortgage, the latter person is said to have a charge on the property; and all the provisions hereinbefore contained as to a mortgagor shall, so far as may be, apply to the owner of such property, and the provisions of sections 81 and 82 and all the provisions hereinbefore

contained as to a mortgagee instituting a suit for the sale of the mortgaged property shall, so far as may be, apply to the person having such charge. Nothing in this section applies to the charge of a trustee on the trust-property for expenses properly incurred in the execution of his trust. Scope of this Section -The first paragraph consists of two parts. The first part concerns the creation of a charge over immovable property. A charge maybe made by the act of the parties or by operation of law. Where such a charge has been created the second part comes into play. It provides that all the provisions hereinbefore contained which apply to a simple mortgage shall, so far as maybe apply to such charge. It does not attract provisions of Section 59 relating to the creation of the mortgage. With regard to the applicability of the provisions relating to a simple mortgage, the second part of the first paragraph makes no distinction between a charge created by the act of parties and a charge created by the operation of law. Now a charge by operation of law is not made by a sign, registered and attested instrument. Obviously, the second part has not the effect of attracting the provisions of Section 59 to such a charge. Likewise, the Legislature could not have intended that the second part would attract the provisions of Section 59 of a charge created by the act of parties. Had this been the intention of the Legislature the second part would have been differently worded. If a charge can be made by a registered instrument only in accordance with Section 9, the subsequent transferee will always have notice of the charge in view of Section 3 under which registration of the instrument operates as such a notice. But the basic assumption of the doctrine of notice enunciated in second paragraph is that there may be cases where the subsequent transferee may not have notice of the charge Proviso - the proviso makes it clear that a charge is not enforceable against a trans-feree of the property for consideration and without notice of the charge. This part of the proviso, was introduced by the Amending Act, 20 of 1929 and it sets at rest the conflict of decisions which existed prior to the amendment. In a number of cases, it was held that a charge was an interest in immovable property and was binding even on transferees for consideration and without notice of the charge.1 These decisions have been superseded by the amendment. Charge and Mortgage - Distinction between The difference between a charge and mortgage has been explained in Section 58. In Raja Shiv Prasad case 2 , Das, J., said : The broad distinction between a mortgage and a charge is this; that whereas a charge only gives a right to payment out of particular fund or particular property without transferring that fund or property, a mortgage is in essence a transfer of an interest in specific immovable property.

A mortgage is a jus in rem, a charge is a jus ad rem and the practical distinction is, that a mortgage is good against subsequent transferees and a charge is only good against subsequent transferees without notice. 3 A charge created in favour of a creditor continues to subsist until it is extinguished or abandoned by express words to that effect. A charge on future property is valid and operates on such property when it comes into existence. In the case of a mortgage as well as a charge, the property of one person is made security for a loan or debt; but a mortgage is a transfer of an interest in a property, a charge does not involve the transfer of any interest in the property. 4 A mortgage or a sale deed invalid for the want of registration will not operate as a charge. A contract of sale does not create any charge on immovable property to be sold.5 In Gobind Chandra case, Mookerjee, J. said, If an instrument is expressly stated to be a mortgage, and gives the power of realization of the mortgage money by sale of the mortgaged premises, it should be held to be a mortgage. The fact that the necessary formalities of due execution were wanting would not convert the mortgage into a charge. If, on the other hand, the instrument is not on the face of it a mortgage, but simply creates a lien, or directs the realization of money from a particular property, without reference to sale, it creates a charge. But in Sarju Prasad case, 6 where a judgment-debtor bought back his property at a court auction in the name of benamidar, and the benamidar raised the purchased by himself giving a mortgage of the property, it was held that the mortgage was entitled to a charge. As far as Indian law is concerned only two types of hypothecations have been statutorily recognised, one is the pledge as defined under Section 172 of the Contract Act and the other is mortgage under Section 58, T.P. Act. Perhaps charge under Section 100 is another recognised form. 7 A deed that is neither written nor registered can be neither a mortgage nor a charge. Charge and mortgage - How different .

Mortgage ( Section 58 ) Charge (Section 100) A mortgage is security for repayment of a debt. A charge is also security for repayment of an amount which however may or may not be debt . A mortgage may also be a security for the Nothing like this in case of a charge. performance of an engagement giving rise to pecuniary liability. A mortgage is transfer of an interest in an Charge holder does not have any interest

immovable property. in the property A mortgage can be created only by act of A charge can be created by act of parties as parties. well as by operation of law. In a mortgage there can be covenant to pay. A mortgage gives rise to right in rem. In charge, there is no covenant to pay. No such right is here in case of charge only those having notice of charge are affected by charge.

A mortgagee can follow his security A charge holder cannot. wheresoever it goes. It can follow it even in the hands of bonafide purchaser for value. Mortgage can be enforced byIn case of charge, sale alone is remedy a) Suit for foreclosure(Sec.67) or that too, through courts. b) Suit for money(Sec 69), or c) Suit for sale (Sec 69) Every mortgage is a charge. Every charge is not mortgage. Charge is of wider import.

A simple mortgage can be enforced within 12 A charge can be enforced within 12 years only. years, others within 30 years.

Charge and Lien: How Different Charge A charge maybe on immovable property. Lien

A lien can be on both movable and immovable property. A charge maybe created by act of parties and A lien is created only by operation of law. also by operation of law. A charge is not possessory in nature. A lien is possessory in nature.

A charge holder may sell the property himself. A lien holder can sell the property subject to charge through court

Provisions which apply to simple mortgage whether apply to charge also -All provisions relating to simple mortgage do not necessarily apply to a charge. They apply only so far as may be. If there were a charge enforced on a single occasion the property, when sold in enforcement thereof, would pass unencumbered, into the hands of the purchaser. But different considerations arise when the charge is of recurring nature. In the case of a recurring charge, even though the charged property might be sold in execution of a decree for arrears payable in respect of the sum charged, the liability in respect of future payments would ordinarily remain after the sale and would not be extinguished by the sale of the charged property in satisfaction of a decree for arrears which might have already accrued, and that in such a case the charge would not be extinguished by the sale and, as a charge is attached to the property charged, the auction-purchaser would ordinarily get the purchased property subject to the charge. Whenever a property is made subject to a charge of a recurring nature, it is generally worth much more than the amount payable in one instalment of the charge.

What Constitutes Charge

1. Security for the payment of money - In order to create a charge it is not necessary to employ any technical or any particular form of words. All that is requires is that there must be a clear intention to make a particular property a security for the payment of money. 10 Where the property is not intended to serve as security there can be neither a mortgage nor a charge. The mere permission to a creditor to make collections from the debtors zamindari for the purpose of crediting them towards a debt due on promissory note does not create a charge. An agreement to pay a lump sum annually out of the income of certain property crates a charge over the property.11 In the case of Bal Krishnan and others v. P.V. Mohum and others,12 it was held that where the vendor had sole the bus to the vendee and filed the suit for the recovery of the amount along with the application of attachment of the bus before judgment and obtained the order and the plaintiff, a third party, on the request of the vendee, the owner of the schedule property in plaint, had proposed the schedule property in plaint in security to release the bus from the order of attachment and filed the bond before the court and thereafter the vendor and vendee in collusion had compromised for the recovery of amount due from the proposed property as security and created the charge on the scheduled property in plaint and the bus, without the consent of the plaintiff was delivered to the vendee, the creation of the charge by the vendor and the vendee on the property of the plaintiff on the recovery of the amount due will be illegal. Therefore, the

decree, creating charge over the property in the plaint would not be binding on the plaintiff and thus the plaintiff is entitled for a decree declaring his right over the said property. 2. Property must be specified - It is not necessary that the properties charged should be described with that amount of definiteness as is necessary in case of mortgage. There should be some expression to signify what properties exactly are to be charged. A general description of the property would be sufficient if from the facts and circumstances, the property to be charged can be ascertained. Where the description given is too vague and indefinite, the charge will be void for uncertainty. 3. Transaction does not amount to a mortgage - an agreement to mortgage does not constitute a charge. 13 A document invalid as a mortgage for want of registration or attestation does not amount to a charge.14 This distinguishes it from a mortgage.

Kinds of charge
This Section deals with two kinds of charges, viz., charges created by acts of parties and charges created by operation of law. The Nagpur High Court has held that in a decree, charge is not created by act of parties, nor can it be said to have been created by operation of law.15 But in a later decision, the same High court has held that a charge created by a compromise of a money decree is not a charge created by the act of parties and is, therefore, governed by this section.16 The Patna High Court has, however, held that where a charge is created by a decree which was passed in pursuance of an agreement between the parties; it is a charge created by the act of parties and consequently one contemplated by Section100.17 But a charge created by ordinary decree would not be a charge created by the act of the parties and the provision of Section 100 would not apply. The Madras and Bombay High Courts have held that a charge created by the decree of a competent court is created by the operation of law. 18 The full bench of Allahabad High Court held that a charge created by a decree was not a charge created by operation of law.19 The Karnataka High Court has held that the right of maintenance is a recurring right and it would continue to be a charge on the property till the decree-holder continues to have a right of enforcing the claim of maintenance. 20 The Calcutta High Court held that a charge on immovable property created by a decree could be enforced against the transferee of such property, even though the transferee had no notice of the charge. This legal position follows from the law of estoppel.21

1.Charge Created by the act of parties Charge can be created by the act of parties as discussed by Dr. Rashbehari Ghosh his Tagore Law Lectures orally, or by a document the with registration. The proposition cannot be doubted because of the amendment to the Registration Act. A charge being the right to property (not an interest to property) as is observed in Uttamchand v. Wasudeo23, a document creating it needs registration under Sec 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act. This is unsettled and cannot be gainsaid. 24 Thus for creating a charge on immovable property, no particular form of words are needed. However, the deed must disclose an intention to create charge on the property and fund. It is sufficient, if having regard to all the circumstances of the transaction, the document shows an intention to make the land security for the payment of money mentioned therein. In other words, there must be evidence of intention disclosed by the deed that a specified property or fund belonging to a person was intended to be made liable to satisfy the debt by him. In M.C. Chacko case25 , Bank A had an overdraft account with Bank B. Father of the Manager of bank A had executed from time to time letters of guarantee in favour of the bank B agreeing to pay amounts due to bank A, its manager and his father. The court held that, on interpretation of the clauses it is obvious that it was not intended to create a charge on properties to which the letters of guarantee related, in favour of the bank A for the amount which may fall due under the letters of guarantee. The letter of guarantee in this case created merely a personal obligation. Of all charges, those created by the act of the parties are most liable to be mistaken for simple mortgages. But since a charge is not mortgage, it is evident that the Legislature intended to discriminate the two kinds of securities, though in doing so the Courts have often made a distinction without a difference, and indeed, if regard be had to the fact that while a charge presents obvious points of divergence from an English mortgage, the only form of security ordinarily in vogue, in England, the various forms of mortgage prevalent here must necessarily render it often difficult to de-fine when a charge ends and a mortgage begins.26 According to this view it is not however necessary that the power of sale conferred by the bond should be exercised by the mortgage, otherwise than through the intervention of the Courts, but it is urged that if the bond only stipulates that the loan should be repaid with interest in a certain year and certain immovable property is hypothecated as security for the repayment of debt, the bond could not be regarded as creating anything more than a charge since the power of scale is wanting. 27 The course of decisions in Bombay, then, appears to be to regard the power of sale as of the essence of a mortgage though such power may be impliedly given to the mortgagee. 28 It is therefore clear in that order to constitute a simple mortgage, an express or implied power of sale exercisable through the Court is all that is required, and that it is nonetheless a mortgage, if it

conveys no power to the mortgagee to sell the property out of the Court, a power which, 29could not be valid in such mortgages. It has been similarly held by the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court.30 In another case, stress was laid on the intention more than on the expression.31 It seems that the only distinction recognized by the legislature between a mortgage and a charge is that while the (a) transfer (b) interest in immovable property in the one, there is merely the creation of a security without anything in the other , and if these elements that of transfer is the most material, the question depends upon whether any transfer was made in favour of the obligee.32 . Charge does not create an interest in the immovable property. 33 A charge created by will or a compromise decree is a charge created by act of parties. But a charge by award of the arbitrator is outside the scope of Section 100 of transfer of property Act. Some examples of charge by act of parties : In Chalmanna case, A inherited an estate from his maternal grandfather and executed an agreement to pay his sister B a fixed annual sum out of the rent of the estate. B had a charge on the estate. In Govinda case, A sued B for a sum of money, and the compromise decree directed that the immovable property specified herein shall be hypothecated for the realisation of said money and B shall not be able to create any encumbrance on the same. A has a charge on the property for the amount decreed. In Maina case, A brought a suit to recover certain immovable property against B. a compromise was reached between the two. As a result a decree was passed under which the property was awarded to A with a term that A should pay B a monthly sum for maintenance and if A failed to pay the aforesaid monthly sum with interest at the rate of one percent per mensem from the property decreed. B has a charge for maintenance on the property thus decreed. In Narain Das case, A sued B on a promissory note. A compromise was reached between the two which directed the payment of money and further directed that B should not dispose of his share in a factory until satisfaction of the entire decretal amount. The court held that A had a charge on the property specified. Though the section does not state that the property charged must be specified, it is nevertheless essential, for there can be no security unless the property is reasonably uncertain, though it is not necessary that the properties charged should be described with that amount of definiteness as is necessary in the case of mortgage.34 It is not to be disputed that a charge may be created on property which is to come into existence in future and may be enforced when it comes into existence. This point seems to be concluded by authority.35

So where the debtor stipulated that if the debt be not paid then the oblige be entitled to recover the whole of his money together with the interest fixed by instituting a suit from my (the debtors) movable and immovable property was held to create no mort-gage, nor did it suffice to create a charge on any specific property of the debtor. 36 It is possible to create a charge on future property. Such is the landlords charge on his tenants crops for his rent.37 But such charges are outside the scope of this section which is limited to charges on immovable property38 though it may relate to a future liability.39 Then again, even if the property be mentioned it must be made a security for the payment of money to another; in such a way that the transaction does not amount to a mortgage. 40 Charge created by the consent decree - Reading Sec 100 in conjunction with Sec 52 the Transfer of Property Act it will be seen that the purchaser of properties subject to a charge created by a compromise decree the satisfaction or discharge of which has not been obtained or has not become barred by limitation does not get any assistance from the proviso to Sec 100 of the Act even though he is a purchaser for value without notice of the charge. So long as the decree is not satisfied and is kept alive the purchase is hit by the rule of lis pendens irrespective of whether the purchase is a bona fide transaction or not. This view is fortified by some of the decided cases of the Madras High Court. In Rajagopala v. Kesava 41, a Bench of the Madras High Court decided that Sec. 100 of the Transfer of Property Act does not override the provisions of Sec. 52 of the Act and that the legislature by the amendment of Sec 100 could not have intended to qualify the doctrine of lis pendens. 42 In another case the property was charged for maintenance and that was also done by a decree of the Court. It was held decree cannot be lost in view of the introduction of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act which if it has overriding effect on any other Acts but cannot have any overriding effect on a decree passed by a competent court. 43 The principle of lis pendens applies not only to a case where the plaintiff seeks to enforce a preexisting charge, but also to a case in which the plaintiff asks for grant of a charge; the transferee pendente lite takes the transfer from a defendant to the action subject to the rights granted by and enforceable under the decree. 44 Creation of a contingent charge - A contingent charge, that is to say, a present charge as security for discharging a contingent liability can be validly created. Sections 5 and 21 of the Transfer of Property Act recognise the principle of contingent charge. Floating charge - A floating charge on a companys assets is a present charge, although it does not finally attach or crystallize upon any specific property until the happening of some event which puts an end to the right of the company to deal with the property in the course of its

business. It is a floating mortgage applying to every item comprised in the security but not specifically affecting any item until some event occurs or some act on the part of the mortgage is done which causes it to crystallize into a fixed security. The idea of a floating charge is that the mortgager should carry on his business in the ordinary way. Therefore, if the assets are not fluctuating or if no act or intervention of the mortgagee is necessary for the charge to crystallize, the charge is not floating but specific. The most familiar example is to be found in the debentures of the trading company for the time being but intended to fasten upon and bind the assets in existence when the mortgagee intervenes. Registration - A charge need not be in writing, but if it is reduced to writing, registration is necessary in the case of a non-testamentary instrument of the value of Rs 100 or upwards, under Section 17(1)(b) of the registration Act, which applies to rights not only in, but also to immovable property. 45 As a charge in writing requires registration of the immovable property of the value of Rs 100 or upwards, the assignment of such a charge would also need to be registered 2. Charge by law and charge by operation of law-A charge by operation of law is one which arises irrespective of the agreement of the parties. Such charges are known as equitable liens in English Law. The words by operation of law are more extensive than the words by law and a charge created by operation of law includes a charge directly created by the provisions of an Act as well as other charges created indirectly as a legal consequence of certain conditions. The expression operation of law only means the working of the law and is not restricted in its application to such cases as fall under Section 55 or Section 73. The inclusion in the definition of charges, the charge by operation of law has been criticized as inconsistent with the scheme of the Act which relates to transfers by act of parties. The Act, however, itself creates such charge. As illustrations of such charges we may note the following:(i) Vendors charge for unpaid purchase money -This is provided by Section 55(4)(b): where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer before payment of the whole of the purchase money, the seller is entitled to a charge upon the property in the hands of the buyer, any transferee without consideration or any transferee with notice of the non-payment, for the amount of the purchase-money, or any part thereof remaining unpaid, and for interest on such amount or part from the date on which possession has been delivered. (ii) Vendees charge for purchase money paid in advance -Under Section 55 (6)(b), the vendee is entitled. unless he has improperly declined to accept delivery of the property, to a charge on the property, as against the seller and all persons claiming under him, to the extent of

the seller's interest in the property, for the amount of any purchase-money properly paid by the buyer in anticipation of the delivery and for interest on such amount; and, when he properly declines to accept the delivery, also for the earnest (if any) and for the costs (if any) awarded to him of a suit to compel specific performance of the contract or to obtain a decree for its rescission. (iii) Mortgagees charge on surplus sale proceeds of a revenue sale- Section 73 (iv) Trustees charge- Under Section 82 in favour of a person entitled to a charge on the income as well as the corpus, of the trustee for all money properly spent in performing the obligations of the trust. (v) The charge on right of maintenance- Section 39 (vi) The charge on right of a holder of a defective title who makes improvement on the property -Section 51

Remedies of Charge-Holder
1. Remedy of judicial sale - The remedy of judicial sale is available to a charge-holder for his remedies are the same as those which may be exercised by a simple mortgage. 2. Additional remedy given by contract - In Renukabai vs. Bheosan, 46 a charge-holder was given a contract between the parties the remedy of taking possession of the property. It was held that the charge was thereby not invalidated. Vivian Bose J., observed: I do not think that the latter portion of Section 100 can be said to govern the former. It maybe relevant in considering whether a charge was really intended to be created but I do not think that an amendment which clearly falls can be invalidated altogether simply because it contains provisions which offend against the procedural law. The decree passed was that possession should be delivered to the charge-holder unless the property was redeemed within a fixed time by the court. Similar was the judgement of the Apex Court in K.Muthuswami Gounder v. N. Palaniappa Goundar47 Remedy of maintenance charge Holder -Where the judgement-debtor is also under a personal liability to pay maintenance, the fact that a charge created as security for regular payments does not deprive the decree-holder of his ordinary right to execute the decree personally against the judgment -debtor48 though a charge is merely declared without a specific statement that the property charged can be brought to sale in execution proceedings it is not necessary to file a separate suit for the enforcement of charge. 49

Proviso to Section 100 T.P. Act 1. Peculiar incidents of Trustees charge saved -A trustee is entitled to a charge on the income as well as the corpus of the trust estate for all moneys properly spent in performing the obligations of the trust. 50 This charge has priority over the claims of the beneficiaries. But as long as he is a trustee, his remedy, forming his charge is limited by Section 32 of the Trust Act. He may therefore, only reimburse himself for such expenses and interests out of the income and profits of the trust estate and prohibit any disposition of the trust property without prior payment of his expenses. While he is a trustee, he cannot destroy the trust by bringing it to sale. But after he has ceased to be a trustee, or after he has lost possession of the trust property, he may enforce his charge.51 2. Bona fide transferee for consideration and without notice unaffected - The Proviso makes it clear that a charge is not clear against a transfer of property for consideration and without notice of the charge. This part of the proviso was introduced by the amending Act of 1929 and it sets at rest the conflict of decisions which rested prior to the amendment. In a number of cases it was held that a charge was an interest in immovable property and was binding even on transferees and without notice of charge. 51 Extinction of charge - A charge may be extinguished in the same manner as a simple mortgage. Thus, it is extinguished by (i) act of parties; (ii) novation; and (iii) merger. A charge maybe extinguished where the charge holder releases his debt or claim to recovery of the money. Secondly where the charge-holder enters into a new agreement which negatives the effect of earlier agreement creating charge, it is said to have extinguished by novation. Thirdly merger is union of lower security with higher security and it extinguishes the charge. Mortgage by deposit of title deed - It has to be held that the right, if any, of the Recovery Officer to conduct sale of the mortgaged property in question was only subject to the statutory first charge available in favour of the State to recover the sales tax arrears from the Company. The admitted position is that the revenue authority had effected attachment of the property even prior to the sale conducted by the Recovery Officer. Though a sale notice was published by the revenue officer, the sale did not take place. This sale notice was also long prior to the sale conducted by the Recovery Officer. Thus in view of the matter, the sale conducted by the Recover Officer without notice to the revenue is liable to be set aside.52 These decisions have been superseded by this Amendment. Section 101. No merger in case of subsequent encumbrance Any mortgagee of, or person having a charge upon, immovable property, or any transferee from such mortgagee or charge-holder, may purchase or otherwise acquire the rights in the

property of the mortgagor or owner, as the case may be, without thereby causing the mortgage or charge to be merged as between himself and any subsequent mortgagee of, or person having a subsequent charge upon, the same prop-erty; and no such subsequent mortgagee or charge-holder shall be entitled to foreclose or sell such property without redeeming the prior mortgage or charge, or otherwise than subject thereto. A mortgage or a charge can be extinguished by merger. A merger takes place when two estates held in same legal right become united in the same person. A merger in respect of a mortgage arises: 1. By the mortgage acquiring the equity of redemption 2. By the mortgagor redeeming the mortgage 3. By the purchaser of the equity of redemption redeeming the mortgage. Thus we see that Section 100 and 101 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with Charge. It arises when immovable property of one person is made a security for the repayment of money to another when it does not amount to a mortgage. A charge is very much similar to a simple mortgage.

List of References
1. Chittamma v. Mureyya, (1937) Mad. 92. 2. Raja Shiv Prasad v. Beni Madhab, (1922) Pat. 337 3. Kishan Lal v. Ganga Ram, 13 All. 28 4. (1969) I.T.J 14 (Bom) 5. Jhandoo v. Ramesh Chandra, A.I.R. 1971 All.189 6. Sarju Prasad v. Bir Bhaddar, 15 All. 504 7. A.I.R. 1964 Andh. Pra 201 8. Jnanendra Nath Roy v. Sasi Mukhi, AIR 1940 Cal 60 9. Manmohan Das v. Bahauddin, AIR 1957 All 575 at pp. 585-586 10. A.I.R 1967 S.C. 1631 11. Rustamalli v. Aftabhuesin AIR 1943 Bom 12. A.I.R. 1998 Ker. 257 13. Venkatrammana v. Imperial Bank AIR 1938 Mad. 512 14. Guru Din v. raj Kumar AIR 1942 Luck. 52 15. Ghasiram v. Kundandas, (1940) Nag. 163 16. Bapurao v. Narayan, (1949) Nag. 802 17. Basumati Kher v. Harbansi Kuer, 29 pat. 86 18. Abdul Ghaffar v. Ishiaz Ali, (1943) Oudh 354 19. H.C. Mukherjee v. Radha Mohan, (1949) All. 790 20. Ramchandran v. Smt Lingawwa, A.I.R 1985 N.O.C: 127 (Kant).

21. Chandranath v. Hemnalini, 53 C.W.N. 133 22. L.L.M. 13 All. 28. 23. I.L.R. (1946) Nag. 583 24. Imperial Bank of India v. Bengal National Bank Ltd., I.L.R. 58 Cal. 136; Uttamchand v. Wasudeo, I.L.R. (1946) Nag. 583 25. M.C. Chacko v. The State Bank of Travancore, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 504 26. Rangaswami v. Muttu Kumarappa, I.L.R. 10 Mad. 509 (F.B.) 27. Aliba v. Nanu, I.L.R. 9 Mad. 218 at p. 221 28. Khemji v. Rama, I.L.R. 10 Bom. 519 at p. 527 29. Mahmud, J., in Kishan Lal v. Ganga Ram, I.L.R. 13 All. 28 at pp. 48, 50 30. Jagatdhar v. Brown, I.L.R. 33 Cal. 1133 at p. 1153 31. Govinda v. Dwarka, I.L.R. 35 Cal. 837 at p. 844 32. Sher Singh v. Dayaram, AIR 1932 Lah. 465 at p. 466 (F.B.) 33. South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Maharaj Prasad Singh, AIR 1966 Pat. 75 at p. 79. 34. Municipal Board, Cawnpore v. Rupchand, I.L.R. (1940) All. 669 35. Lagdir Nanji v. Surendra Mohan 42 C.W.N. 971 36. Collector of Etawah v. Bati Maharani, I.L.R. 14 All. 162 37. Mg. Htat v Mg. Sandun, 44 I.C. (Rang) 109 38. Abdul Samad v. Municipal Committee, 67 I.C. (Lah.) 939. 39. Imuluchi v. Achampat, 33 M.L.J 58 :39 I.C. 867 40. Dau Bhario Prasad v. Jugal Prasad 41. I.L.R. 1945 Mad. 726 42. Kulandaivelu v. Swbagyammal, (1945) M.W.N. 304 43. Rundibala Roy v. Putubala, AIR 1985 Cal 47 at pp. 48, 49, 51, 52 44. Kurucheti Janaradanam v. Messrs. Motu Industries Private Ltd., 1975 (1) Andh. W.R. 264 at pp.268, 270 45. Bengal Banking Corporation v. Mackertich, 10 cal. 31 46. AIR 193 Nag. 132 47. A.I.R.1998 S.C. 3118 at p.3123 48. Baburao v. Gopikabal ILR 1942 Nag. 150 49. KJallava v. Parappa AIR 1946 Bom 207 50. In Re Pumpfrey, (1882) 22 Ch.D. 261 51. Mahadev Prasad v. Anand Lal ILR 47 All. 90 52. Canara Bank v. State of Kerala, A.I.R.2005 Ker.5

Bibliography
1. Hari Singh Gour, The Transfer of Property in British India Part 1: Being an Analyti-cal Commentary on the Transfer of Property ACT, 1882 (1901) , Kessinger Publishing (2010)

2. G C V Subba Rao's , Law of Transfer of Property (Easement, Trust & Wills) (Revised by Vepa P Sarathi) in 2 Vols, 6th Edition 2008 3. Darashaw J Vakil's , Commentaries on The Transfer of Property Act, (Revised by Soli J Sorabjee), 2nd Edn 2004 4. Soli J. Sorabjee, Transfer of Property Act : Commentaries on Transfer of Property Act, 2nd Ed (2004) 5. Gour H.S., Commentary on The Transfer of Property Act in 2 vols., 11th Edn (2006) 6. MLJ's - Law of Transfer of Property, LexisNexis ButterWorths Wadhva, 12th Edn. (2004) 7. Avtar Singh , Textbook on The Transfer of Property Act, 2nd Edn., Universal Law Publishing (2010) 8. Yogesh Desai Vasoya, Transfer Of Property Act 1882 With All State Amendments 9. Kisora Mohana Chatterjea , The Law Relating to the Transfer of Immoveable Prop-erty, Inter Vivos; With an Appendix Containing the Transfer of Property ACT, Being ACT IV of 1882; Nabu Press 10. Goyle's A Commentary on the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 2nd Edn 2001 11. N. Maheshwara Swamy, Text Book of Property Law, 1st Edn., Asia Law House 12. Nandi, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, 2nd Edn., Dwivedi Law Agency 13. S. K. Awasthi, Transfer of Property Act, R/P, Orient Publishing Company 14. S.N. Shukla, Transfer of Property Act, Allahabad law Agency (2010)

Webliography :
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882 http://dolr.nic.in/Acts&Rules%5CTransferOfPropertyAct%281882%29.htm Property Laws in India www.indianground.com/legal.aspx Indian Property Transfer http:// www.pindorialaw.com/indian-property-transfer.html 4. Business Laws - Transfer of Property www.sudhirlaw.com/Business5.html Rules for Transfer of Immovable Property in India www.indiainvestmentproperty.com/ 6.Mortgage Law www.tax4india.com/indian-laws/...and.../mortgage-1.html Section 100 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 , Cited by 232 docs http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1563622/