The doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel is based on the concept of ‘nemo dat quod nonhabet which means that no one can give to another, who does not have one’. Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act stipulates that “if a person fraudulently or wrongly assumes that he or she is authorized to transfer certain immovable property and that he or she transfers the property for consideration, such transfer shall be voluntarily required by the transferor.
This general law stipulates that no property may be transferred by any person who is not authorized to do so. Therefore, if a person does not have a title deed, he or she cannot properly transfer that to another person. But the law is exempt from enforcement due to “price adjustments” between the person and the transferor. Some exceptions to this rule are given in section 43, T.P. Act.
The rule of law in which the provisions of sec. 43 live as a well-known rule of estoppel, sometimes called “feeding the grant by estoppel’. This means that if a person does not have a title deed to the property, but gives it to another by transferring it, fraudulently causing the loss of another, he or she will withdraw his or her next interest from that property, in the event of that transfer. An estoppel appears to be against the transferor for his conduct, and the law obliges him to ‘support’ that stopper due to his subsequent acquisition. The principle behind this section is therefore based in part on the doctrine of estoppel and in part on the equal doctrine that a person who has promised more than he can afford, must give when he gets what he originally intended.
The doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel forces a man to do where performance is possible. It gives the transferor the opportunity to proceed with the transfer, then it is entirely up to the transferor if he or she intends to continue the transfer after the transfer has become effective.
In the case of Ram Bhawan Singh v Jagdish [(1990) 4 SCC 309] the court of law noted that “when a person with a limited interest in the property transfers a substantial interest to the transferor, and receives a higher interest rate, the higher interest rates to the transferor than to the final option. This teaching applies not only to the commerce but also to the lending, renting, charging and exchanging. Where there is no grant or interest on the immovable property involved, the doctrine will not apply. This principle also does not apply in the cases where the transferor has received interest not in that asset which is the principal transferor, but in another asset.
The doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel works to secure transfer rights in situations where there has been false representation by the transferor. Therefore, the above article looks at all the application of the doctrine under various circumstances.
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at email@example.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.
We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge