Comprehension
The Supreme Court recently examined the interplay between Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 47 of the Registration Act titled “time from which registered document operates” states that registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration has been required or made. On the other hand, Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that the transfer of immovable property of value above Rs. 100 can be made only by a registered document. It is a trite law that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be made by a deed of conveyance and in the absence of such deed that is duly stamped and registered as required by law, no right, title or interest in the immovable property can be transferred. The Court referred to an earlier decision in Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer where a harmonious balance was maintained between the peremptory language of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and the deeming fiction under Section 47 of the registration act. It also implicitly recognised that Section 54 draws a clear distinction between transfer of tangible immovable property of value more Rs. 100 and less than Rs. 100. In the former case, such transfer can only be made through a registered instrument, whereas in the latter case the transfer may be either by registered instrument or by delivery of property.
(Extract from Kanwar Raj Singh v. Gejo, 2024 SC)
Question: 1

Which of the following is the effect of non-registration of a compulsorily registrable document?

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • The unregistered document cannot be adduced in evidence of any transaction affecting such property
  • As long as the terms, grant or disposition is in writing and fulfils the criteria of S. 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, it will be admitted as evidence
  • Procedure is a handmaid of justice and registration is merely a procedural requirement. Non registration does not make the document less admissible in court
  • The unregistered document can be adduced in evidence if the party adducing it is able to prove its bonafide
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

The legal consequences of failing to register a document required by law in India are critical for its use as evidence. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act mandates that transfers of immovable property worth more than Rs. 100 must be registered. Without registration, the document doesn't legally transfer any property rights. Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, work together: registered documents take effect from the date they *would have* if registered, but registration itself is essential for the transfer.
The courts, in cases like Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer and Kanwar Raj Singh v. Gejo, have clarified that registration is mandatory for property transactions exceeding Rs. 100, except when physical possession is transferred for lower-value properties. Therefore, the primary outcome of failing to register a document that *must* be registered is that the unregistered document cannot be presented as evidence of a transaction related to the property.
Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 2

A property from one person to the other can be transferred by way of:

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • Court sale, gift, will, inheritance, relinquishment
  • Dedication, gift, will, inheritance, relinquishment
  • Private or court sale, gift, will, inheritance, relinquishment, dedication
  • Private or court sale, gift, will, inheritance
Show Solution

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Property transfer describes changing property ownership. Legal methods for this include:
  • Sale: Selling property directly or through court order.
  • Gift: Giving property without payment, using a gift deed.
  • Will: A document detailing asset distribution after death.
  • Inheritance: Property transfer to heirs after death.
  • Relinquishment: A co-owner gives up their share.
  • Dedication: Donating property for public use.
In summary, the complete methods are:
Sale, gift, will, inheritance, relinquishment, dedication
Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 3

Where the member of the family agrees to divide the property amongst themselves, not necessarily in accordance with the quantum as specified in law or according to their entitlement. It can take into its fold non-family members as well. Once effected, it is binding on all the members who were parties to it and is enforceable?
This division is called:

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • Transfer of property under the Transfer of Property Act
  • Partition of joint Hindu Family
  • Family Arrangement
  • Partition in interested parties
Show Solution

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

A Family Arrangement is a family agreement for property division, potentially differing from legal entitlements. It can include non-family members and becomes legally binding upon establishment. This differs from formal legal processes, such as the Transfer of Property Act, often requiring registered documents for immovable property transfers. Understanding related laws is essential, including how Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act necessitates registration for property transfers exceeding Rs. 100, necessitating a properly stamped and registered deed of conveyance.
Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 4

Property and interest in the property as general rule are transferable. This rule of transferability is based on the maxim:

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • Alienation rei praefertur juri accrescendi
  • Cujus est solum eius est usque ad coelum et usque ad infernos
  • Res nullius
  • Nemo dat quod non habet
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

The principle of "Alienation rei praefertur juri accrescendi," which favors property transferability, is a key concept. This means that property rights are preferred to be transferred rather than inherited or automatically passed on.
The Supreme Court's examination of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, underscores the necessity of proper property registration. These sections establish:
  • Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908: A registered document takes effect from the date specified, even if registration wasn't initially needed.
  • Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Property transfers valued above Rs. 100 must use a registered document.
Legal precedents, such as Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer, emphasize the importance of these sections. The Court confirms that without a properly registered conveyance deed, the transfer of immovable property rights is not legally valid, reflecting the principle of alienation.
In short, the transferability principle, based on "Alienation rei praefertur juri accrescendi," highlights that legal systems prioritize the active transfer of property over its automatic retention within an estate.
Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 5

In a given case where a sale deed is executed and entire agreed consideration is paid on or before execution of sale deed, after it is registered, it will operate from:

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • Date of registration of the sale deed
  • Date of execution of the sale deed
  • Date on communication of proposal was complete
  • None of the above
Show Solution

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

To determine when a registered sale deed takes effect, we must consider the legal framework of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Key sections include:

  • Section 47 of the Registration Act: This section states a registered document is effective from the time it would have been effective without registration, giving it retroactive effect.
  • Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act: It mandates that property sales exceeding Rs. 100 in value require a registered deed. Without this, no legal transfer of property rights occurs. This contrasts sales needing registered deeds (over Rs. 100) with potential oral contracts (under Rs. 100).

Judicial Interpretation: Cases such as Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer have clarified that while Section 54 requires registration, Section 47 allows the deed to operate from the execution date if conditions are met.

Therefore, when the full payment is made, and a sale deed is signed, the deed takes effect from the signing date, even if registration is later. This ensures legal coherence and acknowledges the parties' fulfillment of obligations prior to registration.

Correct Answer: Date of execution of the sale deed

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Property Law

Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam

An unpleasant tussle ensured between the TATA Sons and Cyrus Pallonji Mistry (“CPM”) in October 2016, when Mistry, who was the sixth chairman of Tata Sons, was ousted from the position of Executive Chairman of Tata Sons Limited. CPM took over as the chairman in 2012 after Ratan Tata announced his retirement. Tata Group patriarch Ratan Tata had personally asked Cyrus Mistry to resign as chairman of Tata Sons as the board had lost faith in him, but his refusal led to the removal via majority vote. Cyrus Investments Private limited and Sterling Investment Corporation Private Limited belonged to the Shapoorji Palloni Group in which CPM held a controlling interest (about 2% of the issued share capital of Tata Sons). Seven out of the nine directors of Tata Sons voted for CPM’s replacement after Farida Khambata abstained and Mistry was declared ineligible to vote as he was an interested director. Mistry challenged his removal, accusing the board of mismanagement and of oppressing minority shareholders. however, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) rejected his petition. After this Mistry challenged his removal in National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). In 2018, NCLAT order restored Mistry as the group’s executive chairman. Tata Sons challenged that NCLAT order in Supreme Court. CPM also challenged the order for few more relief. Supreme Court stayed NCLAT’s order reinstating Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of Tata Sons and restoring his directorships in the holding company as well as three group companies, with a preliminary observation that the first impression of the order was “not good” and that the tribunal ‘could’ not have given consequential relief that had not been sought in the first place. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided the case in favour of Tata Sons. One of the issues decided by Supreme Court was that “whether the case was fit to be qualified as a situation of ‘Oppression and Mismanagement’ under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013?”. On this issue, the Supreme Court observed that “unless the removal of a person as a chairman of a company is oppressive or mismanaged or done in a prejudicial manner damaging the interests of the company, its members or the public at large, the NCLT cannot interfere with the removal of a person as a Chairman of a Company in a petition under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013.” This case highlighted the point that “an executive chairman does not have sovereign authority over the company. In corporate democracy, decision making always remains with the Board as long as they enjoy the pleasure of the shareholders. Likewise, an executive chairman will continue as long as he/she enjoys the pleasure of the Board. An assumption by the executive chairman that he/she would have a free hand in running the affairs of the company is incongruous to corporate governance and corporate democracy. The Tribunal held that the concept of ‘free hand rule’ is antithesis to collective responsibility and collective decision making”.
[Based on Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC 122].
View Solution
Alastair Hudson in his book ‘Securities Law’ First Edition (Sweet & Maxwell), 2008 at page 342, refers to ‘Restricted Offers’ and noticed that there is no contravention of Section 85 of FSMA 2000, if: “(b) the offer is made to or directed at fewer than 100 persons, other than qualified investors, per EEA State”. The purpose underlying that exemption, the author says, is mainly the fact that the offer is not being made to an appreciable section of “the public” such that the policy of the prospectus rules generally is not affected. Further, the author says that “Self-evidently, while an offer to 99 ordinary members of the public would be within the literal terms of the exemption, it would not be the sort of activity anticipated by the legislation. Moreover, if a marketing campaign were arranged such that ordinary members of the people were approached in groups of 99 people at a time in an effort to avoid the prospectus rules, then that would not appear to be within the spirit of the regulations and might be held to contravene the core principle that a regulated person must act with integrity.”
I may, therefore, indicate, subject to what has been stated above, in India that any share or debenture issue beyond forty-nine persons, would be a public issue attracting all the relevant provisions of the SEBI Act, regulations framed thereunder, the Companies Act, pertaining to the public issue. Facts clearly reveal that Saharas have issued securities to the public more than the threshold limit statutorily fixed under the first proviso to Section 67(3) and hence violated the listing provisions which may attract civil and criminal liabilities. Principles of listing, which I may later on discuss, is intended to assist public companies in identifying their obligations and responsibilities, which are continuing in nature, transparent in content and call for high degree of integrity. Obligations are imposed on the issuer on an ongoing basis. Public companies who are legally obliged to list their securities are deemed to accept the continuing obligations, by virtue of their application, prospectus and the subsequent maintenance of listing on a recognized stock exchange. Disclosure is the rule, there is no exception. Misleading public is a serious crime, which may attract civil and criminal liability. Listing of securities depends not upon one’s volition, but on statutory mandate.
[Extract from Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Para 89-91, Civil Appeal No. 9833/2011 (SC)]
View Solution
The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past, it was thought that it included just two rules namely: (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem).
Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is not questioned.
If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry as observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [Civil Appeal No. 990/68, decided on 15-07- 1968], the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.
[Extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262, decided on April 29, 1969, hereafter ‘A.K. Kraipak’].
View Solution
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is by now well recognized and well defined by a catena of decisions of this Court. Where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promise and, in fact, the promise, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promise notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 229 of the Constitution. The rule of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine has to be moulded to suit the particular situation. It is not a hard-and-fast rule but an elastic one, the objective of which is to do justice between the parties and to extend an equitable treatment to them. This doctrine is a principle evolved by equity, to avoid injustice and though commonly named promissory estoppel, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. For application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel the promise must establish that he suffered in detriment or altered his position by reliance on the promise.
Normally, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is being applied against the Government and defence based on executive necessity would not be accepted by the court. However, if it can be shown by the Government that having regard to the facts as they have subsequently transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it, the court would not raise an equity in favour of the promise and enforce the promise against the Government. Where public interest warrants, the principles of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked. The Government can change the policy in public interest. However, it is well settled that taking cue from this doctrine, the authority cannot be compelled to do something which is not allowed by law or prohibited by law. There is no promissory estoppel against the settled proposition of law. Doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for enforcement of a promise made contrary to law, because none can be compelled to act against the statute. Thus, the Government or public authority cannot be compelled to make a provision which is contrary to law.
[Extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC 193, decided on January 20, 2011, hereafter ‘Shree Sidhbali Steels’].
View Solution