Author: Monica R Final Year Law Student at Sastra Deemed University
Abstract
Joginder Tuli v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors, 2022 was one of the important cases in property law in India. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with the doctrine of part performance. The Court thinks that in order to apply Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the transferee of the property should have a valid and duly registered document. The unregistered documents cannot be taken as a piece of evidence. This article will provide a comprehensive analysis of the case and its implication on property laws in India. It also examines Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 implications on property ownership and registration.
Keyword – Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, registered document
Introduction
Property disputes are holding the major chunk of cases in India. The disputes relating to the properties vary from ownership, possession, registration, etc. There are several landmark cases that are helpful in deciding the disputes between the parties and act as a precedent in arriving at decisions. Joginder Tuli v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors, 2022 the court held that protection under Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 can be invoked when it is backed by a registered document. This case determines the importance of the registration of documents for the better protection and safeguarding of the rights of the property holder.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
The reason for this enactment was to make a comprehensive set of rules relating to the transfer of property between two parties. It is a controlling statute that includes features, elements, and conditions relating to the transfer of property. Even after an exhaustive Act was passed, a few ambiguities remained in its substance. The Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, of 1929 was passed as a result of the arrangement of a special committee in 1927 to plan the Act with a few corrections. Section 53A is one such alteration that lawfully recognizes the ancient English doctrine and applies it retroactively. According to Section 53A, the transferor is explicitly precluded from implementing against the transferee any rights relating to transferred property other than those allowed beneath the terms of the contract.
In these circumstances, the transferor cannot persuasively evacuate the transferee from the property because the lawful title to the property has not however been exchanged to the transferee, and the lawful conventions, such as the contract of deal or exchange, are not in prove or have not been completed in agreement with the law. Section 53A, at that point, bars or estops the transferor’s claim of title, allowing the transferee the capacity to challenge ownership and proprietorship of the property. But the contract needs to be stamped or marked.
The doctrine of Part-Performance is based on equitable grounds in Section 53A.
According to this doctrine, if somebody has taken possession of property based on the contract of sale and has satisfied or is willing to fulfill his commitment on his part of the contract, he won’t be taken off the property.
Nature of transferee’s right under Section 53-A
No title or interest in the property is conferred by Sec. 53 to the transferee regarding the property in his possession. Subsequently, the transferor or any other individual cannot remove the transferee once the conditions mentioned in it are met.
Technicians Studio Ltd. v. Lila Ghosh
The transferee is not allowed to control of right of action. It provides one with the right to protect oneself.
Prabodh Kumar Das v. Dantamara Tea Co Ltd.
The nature of the transferee’s rights under Section 53A is provided by this decision. Transferee is the right to guard one’s possession against removal by an individual with a better title is allowed.
Fundamental Conditions for Application of Section. 53A
There is a contract for the transfer of immovable property.
The transferee takes ownership of the property under this contract.
The transferee has either performed his portion of the contract or is willing to perform the same.
If the previously mentioned conditions are met, the transferee may guard his continuous ownership of the property; that is, if the necessities are met, the transferee not be removed from the property.
Agreement for the deal of genuine estate
Section 53A of the Act does not apply if there is no contract between the parties to the suit. For a steadfast property exchange to be lawfully substantial, the contract must continuously be in composing.
Execution of the contract
Simply putting a contract in composing is deficient. A contract that is accurately performed is too essential. It demonstrates that the transferor or any other authorized agent for his sake must sign the contract. The document must be marked by the proprietor of the property, either straightforwardly or through an assigned agent.
Reasonable certainty
Contracts with unclear or difficult-to-understand clauses are not considered to be subject to Section 53A. Subsequently, when making the contract, the parties ought to make beyond any doubt that all of the clauses, substance, and words are reasonable to the individual who is interpreting them and ought to not cause any confusion.
Joginder Tuli v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors, 2022
Facts of the Case
A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered by Joginder Tuli in 2003 with Ravinder Kumar Chugh [deceased] to buy one shop worth Rupee 7,20,000. Joginder Tuli claimed the possession of the property, however, it was not provided to him because the family of Ravinder Kumar Chugh entered into an agreement with the M/s Rock Contractors Private Limited, who is appointed to construct the shop. The Memorandum of Understanding was entered into with Joginder Tuli in 2003 because the contractor failed to construct the building. The Memorandum of Understanding stated that the vacant land shall be provided to the possession of the Joginder Tuli.
Later, the Joginder Tuli came to know that Arvind Singh was in the possession of the land. The fight arose between the both. Police came to solve the issue. Police asked both the parties to produce documents to support their claims. Joginder Tuli produced the Memorandum of Understanding to show that he is the true owner of the property.
The petitioner claimed to be in ownership of the sealed property in the land, which had been de-sealed in 2008 by the Metropolitan Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and it is sealed according to the directions given by the monitoring committee designated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The petitioner has given all the documentation showing he is in legitimate ownership of the property, but the police did not react to the petitioner’s concerns. The police sealed the property, which the petitioner was in the possession of.
However, in 2008, K.S. Bakshi, the Managing Director of the M/s Rock Contractors Private Limited stated the negotiations to purchase the property in the dispute which was as of now in the ownership of Joginder Tuli as per the Memorandum of Understanding. The petitioner expressed that K.S. Bakshi’s agents had debilitated him, treated him insolently, and used cruel language when they talked to him at the police station.
In light of this, the petitioner has complained to the Delhi Police Commissioner and asked for a careful investigation of his case by the police officers. Joginder Tuli asked consent from the commissioner of police to make a formal complaint (FIR) against K.S. Bakshi and his agents under Sections 294, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, for their comments against him.
Joginder Tuli, filled the writ petition with the Delhi High Court after the police failed to address his complaints.
Issues
Whether the transferee must register the documents to get benefit in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Contentions of the Parties
The respondents contended that the petitioner came to the police station of his own free will and recorded a complaint, instead of only giving the police officer relevant legal documents. The respondents contended that the petitioner’s documents were on undated stamp paper. Besides, he claimed that the MoU needs witnesses. Besides, there is no record of any payments made to the late Ravinder Kumar concerning the property in question. Additional solicitor council Ms. Richa Kapoor, stated that the Memorandum of Undertaking has not affirmed that it has allowed the petitioner in control of the property.
She proceeds by saying that the petitioner has not created any documentation verifying his ownership of the property, like utility bills, tax receipts, lease agreements, etc. She included Arvinder Singh, an agent for Infinity Build Well Private. Ltd. had given all the required lawful documentation to set up the property’s ownership.
Furthermore, the Memorandum of Understanding has no say in the sum of consideration received. The Memorandum of Understanding is ambiguous. A Memorandum of Understanding does not indicate the nature of the property whose ownership was exchanged either.
Judgment
The court decided that the petitioner could not depend on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act for evidence in the absence of any documentation or other concrete verification appearing that the petitioner was in possession.
It is commonly recognized that to give the assurances of application of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the document must be registered. A document that is not registered may not be inspected by a court according to Section 17(e)(1A) read with Section 49 of the Registration Act. Hence, the petitioner can claim benefit under Section 53A when the sale compiles with Section 17[e][1A] of the Registration Act.
Since the petitioner has not submitted any registered reports showing the proprietorship of the disputed property, the writ petition is rejected.
Conclusion
The Joginder Tuli v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors, 2022 is an important case in property law in India. This case highlights the importance of the registration of the documents and the benefit under Section 53A that can be availed if the document is provided as evidence in a registered legal document. This case acts as a precedent in deciding the future cases in property disputes.
FAQS
1. What protection is given by Section 53A of Transfer of Property, 1882 and what is it?
Section 53A explains its purpose, the circumstances in which it applies, and how it shields transferees who are in ownership of immovable property.
2. Why registration of documents is important under Indian Law?
The significance of the registration of documents includes its legal implications, evidentiary value, and protection of legitimate parties involved.
3. What is required to establish possession of the property under Section 53A
Documents that are required to establish ownership are utility bills, tax receipts, and lease agreements, as well as how they can be utilized to support a Section 53A claim.
4. What impact does the Joginder Tuli case have on transferees’ rights in circumstances including disputed property?
Joginder Tuli case has provided the following ideas on property rights, how ownership is determined, registration, and the application of Sec 53A.
5. How does the property rights and enforcement framework in India compare to other countries’ legislative systems?
Comparing and differentiating the property laws of India with those of other nations helps in improving the defaults present in the prevailing laws and incorporating future technologies to tackle modernization.
6. What changes to Indian property law are required to progress the productivity and clarity of property disputes?
Making legislative reforms or policy changes that would improve transparency, legitimate certainty, and certainty in genuine transactions and disputes.
Sources
Nandita Navadgi, “The Crystallization of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and the Role of Laws of Equity in doing so,” International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation [Vol. 4, Issue 1, 2022] 334.
“Doctrine of Part Performance | Section 53A of Transfer of Property TPA,” Law Legum (July 5, 2021),
