Fraudulent or erroneous representation
In B. Narayanswami Raju v. Krishnamoorthy Mudalier, it was found that the vendee had
purchased the property with full knowledge of rights of their vendors. There was no evidence
to show that there has been fraudulent or erroneous representation the vendee had purchased
the property. The Court held that, here the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel was not
attracted. No estoppel can arise by reason of false statement where the truth is known to both
the parties.
This section does not impose upon the transferee any duty to make reasonable enquiry about
the title of the transferor. In Rampyari v. ram Narain, Supreme Court held that, the person
acting on the representation is under no duty to make reasonable enquiry. His acting upon the
representation of the transferor is sufficient.
INDIAN COURTS INTERPRETATION ON DOCTRINE OF FEEDING ESTOPPEL
BY GRANT
Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 differs from the English Doctrine of Feeding
Estoppel by grant in some aspects. Under Section 43 of the Act, the transfer of subsequently
acquired property takes place automatically as in the English law. But, it takes place not at the
moment when the interest is acquired but at the moment transferee exercises its option that the
interest shall stand transferred to him. Also the exception provided under Section 43 is not
considered by English law.
The Doctrine of feeding estoppel has been applied by courts in India even before enactment of
transfer of Property Act 1882. In Krishna Chandra Ghose v. Rasik Lal Khan, Court applied
the equitable principle of feeding estoppel by grant with respect to a Patta (Lease deed) and
applied the general rules of equity as applicable in England when no provision of feeding the
estoppel was created under the Indian Law. The scope of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property
Act 1882 has been considered by the Apex Court in series of cases.
In Junna Masjid Mercara v. Kodimaniandra, Supreme Court held, that there is no
necessary conflict between Section 6(a) and section 43. Court emphasized that Section 6(a)
deals with certain kinds of interests in property mentioned, and prohibits a transfer simpliciter
of those interests. Section 43 deals with representation as to tile made by the transferor who
had no title at the time of transfer and provides that the transfer shall fasten itself to the title
which the transferor shall subsequently acquire.
The Apex Court has maintained the position that the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel
does not apply if the transferee is not misled and knew the factum of lack of title of transferor
the time of transfer. In Kartar Singh v. Smt. Harbans Kaur, the Court concluded that, the
rule of estoppel by deed by the transferor or rule of feeding the estoppel embodied under
Section 43 of the Act would apply only when transferee has been misled. Here, the note in the
sale deed put the appellant on notice of the limited rights of mother as guardian, as a prudent
1
man the appellant was expected to inquire whether on her own the mother is competent to
alienate the estate of the minor. If such acts are not done the limbs under Section 43 are not
satisfied.
The significant question, related to application for the doctrine of feeding estoppel by grant is
whether the principle applies to transfer the property without consideration or it is limited
merely to transfer for consideration. In Ganga Baksh Singh v. Madho Singh, the Allahabad
High Court held that Section 43 is applicable only in case of transfer for consideration and
not in case of gift. A gift of property in which a transferor has no interest will not be protected
under this section if transferor acquires a title to the property after the gift. But, the contrary
opinion was expressed by Supreme Court in Renu Devi v. Mahendra Singh, where court
applied the ‘general principle’ of feeding estoppel by grant, to uphold the validity of gift deed.
Court held, the doctrine of feeding the estoppel, which in essence a principle of equity, does
not in terms apply as the deed stated in case as it is not a transfer for consideration.
CONCLUSION
The Transfer of property by an unauthorized person who has no title over the property but
subsequently acquires interest in property, where the transferor fraudulently or erroneously
represents that he is authorized to transfer certain immovable property and professes to
transfer such property for consideration in order to misled the transferee and where under good
faith the transferee believed to be under authority of law. Under such circumstances Section 43
of Transfer of Property Act 1882 had embodied the provision of doctrine by estoppel
incorporating the provision under English law, the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel.
The doctrine of feeding the estoppel affects the legal relation between transferor and
transferee for value without notice. The Indian courts in various cases tried to establish the
meaning of doctrine of feeding the estoppel under various situations in regards to the
misrepresentation, consideration and under the good faith. Such doctrine is applied in India to
protect the interest of transferee and to provide the transferor to follow up the equitable
principle where he promises more than he can perform, and then he must fulfill his promise
when he gets ability to do.
