Skip to main content

Section 2 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,

 

Section 2 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section 2 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is a saving clause that preserves the validity of certain enactments, incidents, rights, liabilities, etc., that are not affected by the provisions of this Act. It has four sub-sections, namely:

- Section 2(a): This sub-section states that the provisions of any enactment not expressly repealed by this Act shall remain in force. For example, the Indian Registration Act, 1908, which requires certain transfers of property to be registered, is not repealed by this Act and is still applicable.

- Section 2(b): This sub-section states that any terms or incidents of any contract or constitution of property that are consistent with this Act and are allowed by the law for the time being in force shall remain valid. For example, if a contract of sale of property contains a clause that the seller shall pay the stamp duty, this clause is consistent with this Act and is valid.

- Section 2(c): This sub-section states that any right or liability arising out of a legal relation constituted before this Act comes into force, or any relief in respect of any such right or liability, shall not be affected by this Act. For example, if a person has acquired a property by adverse possession before this Act comes into force, his right to the property shall not be affected by this Act.

- Section 2(d): This sub-section states that, save as provided by section 57 and Chapter IV of this Act, any transfer by operation of law or by, or in execution of, a decree or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, shall not be affected by this Act. For example, if a property is transferred by inheritance, or by a decree of specific performance, or by a sale in execution of a decree, such transfer shall not be affected by this Act.

An example of section 2 of the Transfer of Property Act is as follows:

A transfers his property to B by a registered deed of gift in 1881, before this Act comes into force. The deed contains a condition that B shall not alienate the property without the consent of A. In 1883, B sells the property to C without the consent of A. A sues C to recover the property.

In this case, the condition in the deed of gift is valid under section 2(b) of this Act, as it is consistent with this Act and is allowed by the law for the time being in force. Therefore, the transfer of property by B to C is void and A can recover the property from C.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Theories of Punishment

Theories of Punishment Punishment in law serves multiple purposes, and the rationale behind these punishments can be understood through different theories of punishment. These theories form the foundation for justifying punishment and help in shaping law s and sentencing policies. Here’s a detailed explanation of each theory with examples: 1. Deterrent Theory The deterrent theory focuses on preventing crime by imposing severe punishments to create fear among people. The idea is that potential offenders will refrain from committing crimes if they fear punishment. Example : The death penalty or long-term imprisonment for serious offenses like murder or terrorism acts as a deterrent for those considering committing such crimes. 2. Retributive Theory This theory is based on the principle of "an eye for an eye" or giving the offender what they deserve. It focuses on vengeance or moral satisfaction, ensuring the punishment is proportionate to the crime committed. The goal is not to...
Post a Comment
Read more

PART-2 IMPORTANT MCQ'S OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

PART-2  IMPORTANT MCQ'S OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 1. Hira Nath Mishra Vs. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, is a leading case on:   (A) Judicial review  (B) Right of Cross-examination   (C) Reasoned decision   (D) Public corporation  Answer : (B) Right of Cross-examination Explanation : This case involved the expulsion of some students from a medical college for misconduct without giving them a chance to cross-examine the witnesses against them. The Supreme Court held that this violated the principles of natural justice and quashed the expulsion order. The court observed that the right of cross-examination is an essential element of a fair hearing and cannot be denied arbitrarily.  2 . Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India is related to:   (A) Writ of certiorari   (B) Post-decisional hearing  (C) Tortious liability of State  (D) Lokpal Answer : (B) Post-decisional hearing Explanation : This case involved the ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another, 43 I.A. 151 (P.C. 1915). Section 53 - Fradulent transfer

Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another, 43 I.A. 151 (P.C. 1915).  This citation indicates that the case was decided by the Privy Council (P.C.) in 1915, and reported in volume 43 of the Indian Appeals (I.A.), starting from page 151.  The case of Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another was a dispute over the validity of two conveyances of land executed by a debtor, Kishun Benode, to his relatives, Kamta Prashad and Hakim Lal, on 2nd September 1901. The plaintiff, Musahar Sahu, was a creditor of Kishun Benode who had obtained a judgment against him on 5th December 1901. The plaintiff sought to set aside the conveyances on the ground that they were made with intent to defeat or delay his claim, under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The courts gave different verdicts on the two conveyances. The first conveyance, in favour of Kamta Prashad, was set aside by the Subordinate Judge and the High Court, as it was found to be without consi...
Post a Comment
Read more