Page |1

Subject- Law of Property

Topic- Transfer to an Unborn Person

Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Mrs. Rajinder Richa Tayal

UILS Section-D

Panjab University Bcom.llb.(Hnrs.)

7th Semseter

190/16

UILS

Panjab University
 Page |2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to express my sincere thanks to Prof. Rattan Singh, Director of the UILS department
for providing me with all the necessary facilities.

I place on record, my sincere gratitude to Mrs. Rajinder, faculty, department of UILS. I am

extremely grateful and indebted to her for her expert, sincere and valuable guidance and
encouragement extended to me.

I place on record my sense of gratitude to one and all who directly or indirectly have lent
their helping hand in this venture.
 Page |3

CONTENTS
S. NO. TOPIC PAGE NO.
1. Introduction 5
2. Article 15 5-8
3. Article 16 8-20
4. Conclusion 20
5. Bibliography and Webliography 21

TABLE OF CASES
S. NO. CASE PAGE NO.
1. Sovereign Life Assurance Co. Ltd v. Dodd 13
2. Rellenic and General Trust Ltde, H. 13
3. Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd, Re 13
4. General Radio & Appliances Co.Ltd v. M.A Khader 15
 Page |4

INTRODUCTION
Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines the phrase “transfer of property”.
The section provides that “transfer of property” means an act by which a living person
conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself
and one or more than one living persons; and “to transfer property” is to perform such act.
Further provision to the section mentions that “living person” includes a company or
association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, but nothing mentioned here
shall affect any law which is operational in India relating to transfer of property to or by
companies, associations or bodies of individuals.
 Page |5

Thus, section 5 of the Act helps us understand that the conveyance of the property must be
from one living person to another living person. When it is said that both the individual must
be living, it is implied that transfer by will does not come within the scope of section 5 as
such transfers come into effect only after the death of the person who is executing the will.
However an exception to this section is section 13 which facilitates the transfer of
immovable property in favor of an unborn person. Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Act show
that interests in property may be created in favor of an unborn person.

The provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in general do not allow the transfer of
property directly to an unborn person.

Unborn Person- A person who does not have any current existence but has a specific
reference to one and who may be born in the future is considered to be an unborn child or
person. Even though a child in mother’s womb is simply not a person in existence, but has
been treated as a person under both Hindu Law and English Law. Therefore, it should be
noted that the term ‘unborn’, refers not only to those, who might have been perceived but not
yet born, that is a child in womb, but also includes those who are not even perceived.
Whether they will be born at all or not is all possibility, but a transfer of property is
admissible to be effected for their benefit.1

SECTION 13: TRANSFER OF PROPERTY

FOR THE BENEFIT OF AN UNBORN
PERSON
SECTION 13 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 talks about the transfer of
property made for the benefit of an unborn child & states that: where a transfer of property is
made, in order to create an interest for the benefit of a person who is not born at the date of
transfer, subject to the condition that a prior life interest is created in that property by the
same transfer, the interest created for the benefit of such unborn person shall take effect only
when it extends to the whole of the remaining interest of the transferor in the property.

The following two illustrations explain this section very clearly:

1
Available at < https://blog.ipleaders.in/transfer-to-unborn-person/ >, visited on 17th Nov.,2019, at 10:00 p.m.
 Page |6

1. A, owner of property X, transfers the property to B, his daughter, in trust for A, and
after her death, for A’s intended grandchildren. Therefore, B holds a life interest in
the property while A’s grandchildren hold absolute interest in the property. This is a
valid transfer.
2. A transfers property of which he is the owner to B in trust for A and his intended wife
successively for their lives, and, after the death of the survivor, for the eldest son of
the intended marriage for life, and after his death for A's second son. The interest so
created for the benefit of the eldest son does not take effect, because it does not
extend to the whole of A's remaining interest in the property.2

Thus, from the above explanation, following INGREDIENTS can be drawn with respect to
Section 13.

UNBORN PERSON: The transfer of interest in the property is made for the benefit of an
unborn person, that is, the person is not in existence at the date of transfer. It includes both a
child in the womb and a child not even in the womb of a mother.

A child in mother’s womb: En ventre sa mere: (french word meaning child in the mother’s
womb) is deemed to be in existence after taking birth. So in the womb, he is considered still
to be an unborn for the purposes of transfer of property. As per Section 20 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 property so given to an unborn/child in mother’s womb would vest on his
birth.

NO DIRECT TRANSFER: The interest is not transferred directly to the unborn, but via
medium or trust, that is, a prior life interest has to be created in favour of another person.
Thus, the transferor first has to create a life estate in favour of a living person. If a property is
transferred directly to an unborn person, there would be an abeyance (suspension) of
ownership from the date of transfer till the coming into existence of the unborn person.
Section 13 uses the expression “for the benefit of” and not “transfer to” unborn person.

PRIOR LIFE INTEREST: For life interest two conditions need to be fulfilled:

1. Person is acting as a trustee till the unborn is born i.e creating a “mechanism of trust.”
Unborn, after being born, becomes absolute owner of the property without possession
which lies with the trustee.
2. Possession will only be given when life interest has exhausted i.e. after the death of
the trustee.

If the unborn does not come into existence, property will revert back to transferor and his
legal heirs. If the unborn is born even for a minute and dies, property will go to his legal heirs
after the death of the person enjoying life interest and not to the tranferor.

Illustration:

2
Illus. to s.13, Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
 Page |7

A transfers life interest in a property to B i.e the power to possess, enjoy and use the income
of the property, not absolute ownership. And then after B, A transfers absolute interest to B’s
unborn child, C.

 Girijesh Dutt v. Data Din3

A, owner of X property, gifted it to her nephew C’s daughter as life interest stating that if
she has a male descendant, he will have absolute interest in the property. And if female,
she will have limited or life interest in the property. After her, property will absolutely
pass to A’s nephew C. Nephew’s daughter died issueless. It was held that the property
will revert back to A or his heirs as the gift made to C has failed because the moment
limited interest is given to an unborn person, it will be void. Therefore, the transaction
failed there and then. Life interest given priorly to a living person is valid (A’s nephew’s
daughter) but the transaction involving limited interest to the unborn is void.

NO LIMIT ON NUMBER OF LIFE INTERESTS: There is no limit to the number of

successive interests in favour of living persons. Property may be given to more than one
living person ‘for life’, before it ultimately vests in the unborn. For example, A tranfers life
interest in a property to B, then to C, and then to D, and after D an absolute interest to D’s
unborn child E. This is a valid transaction, the only precondition is all persons to whom
successive life interest is given must be alive at the time of transfer because life interest
cannot be given to unborn or dead.

ABSOLUTE INTEREST: Only absolute or whole interest can be transferred in favour of

unborn person and not life or limited interest. That means entire property needs to be
conveyed to the unborn child and not a limited estate.

‘Mechanism of Trust’ includes prior interest and absolute interest.

EXCEPTION ALLOWED UNDER ENGLISH LAW: RULE OF DOUBLE

POSSIBILITY

Section 13 allows transfer of only an absolute interest to the unborn person. But under
English Law the situation is not the same. The rule followed under English Law is the
DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE POSSIBILITY (Abolished in England) or the OLD RULE
AGAINST PERPETUITIES (Whitby’s Rule) according to which first unborn child is
allowed to have limited interest in the property under common law. But the second unborn
must have an absolute interest. Therefore, the second illustration mentioned under Section 13
will be valid under English Law whereas void from the beginning in India, because under
Indian Law, no limited estate can be transferred in favour of unborn child.

Whitby’s rule was laid down in the case of Whitby v. Mitchell4. It can be stated as follows:

3
AIR 1934 Oudh 35 : 147 I.C. 991.
4
(1890) 54 Ch. D. 85.
 Page |8

“If an interest in the reality is given to an unborn person, any remainder to his issue is void,
together with all subsequent limitations. Thus, if land was limited to A, a bachelor for life,
remainder to his son for life and then to A’s son’s son in fee simple, the remainder to the
grandson would be void under this rule.”

If no child is born, property will revert back to the transferor or his legal heirs. First child,
even if born for a minute and dies, would get limited interest and pass on absolute interest to
the child who is born next. This explained with the help of the following situation:

A transfers property to B’s unborn children. Limited interest to first unborn and absolute
interest to the second unborn. If first unborn is not born, the second unborn will not get
absolute but limited interest as the first unborn child and any child born after that would get
absolute interest in the property as second unborn. And if the second unborn is not born, the
first unborn would still not get the absolute interest in the property, the property will revert
back to tranferor or his legal heirs after the life interest of first unborn expires.

Section 13 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is similar to Section 113 of Indian

Succession Act, 1925 except that Section 113 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is
applicable only to the concept of wills whereas Section 13 of Transfer of Property Act,
1882 applies to any mode of transfer of property to the unborn person.

Section 113 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides that:

113. Bequest to person not in existence at testator’s death subject to prior bequest.—Where a
bequest is made to a person not in existence at the time of the testator’s death, subject to a
prior bequest contained in the Will, the later bequest shall be void, unless it comprises the
whole of the remaining interest of the testator in the thing bequeathed.

Illustrations:

1. Property is bequeathed to A for his life, and after his death to his eldest son for life,
and after the death of the latter to his eldest son. At the time of the testator’s death, A
has no son. Here the bequest to A’s eldest son is a bequest to a person not in existence
at the testator’s death. It is not a bequest of the whole interest that remains to the
testator. The bequest to A’s eldest son for his life is void.
2. A fund is bequeathed to A for his life, and after his death to his daughters. A survives
the testator. A has daughters some of whom were not in existence at the testator’s
death. The bequest to A’s daughters comprises the whole interest that remains to the
testator in the thing bequeathed. The bequest to A’s daughters is valid.
3. A fund is bequeathed to A for his life, and after his death to his daughters, with a
direction that, if any of them marries under the age of eighteen, her portion shall be
settled so that it may belong to herself for life and may be divisible among her
children after her death. A has no daughters living at the time of the testator’s death,
 Page |9

but has daughters born afterwards who survive him. Here the direction for a
settlement has the effect in the case of each daughter who marries under eighteen of
substituting for the absolute bequest to her a bequest to her merely for her life; that is
to say, a bequest to a person not in existence at the time of the testator’s death of
something which is less than the whole interest that remains to the testator in the thing
bequeathed. The direction to settle the fund is void.
4. A bequeaths a sum of money to B for life, and directs that upon the death of B the
fund shall be settled upon his daughters, so that the portion of each daughter may
belong to herself for life, and may be divided among her children after death. B has no
daughter living at the time of the testator’s death. In this case the only bequest to the
daughters of B is contained in the direction to settle the fund, and this direction
amounts to a bequest to persons not yet born, of a life-interest in the fund, that is to
say, of something which is less than the whole interest that remains to the testator in
the thing bequeathed. The direction to settle the fund upon the daughters of B is void.

PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING SECTION 13: The rule is that a person disposing of property
to another should not fetter the free disposition of that property in the hands of more
generations than one (by virtue of the condition that life interest cannot be created in favour
of an unborn person). The rule is quite distinct from the “rule against perpetuity” although the
effect of these two rules is often the same.

SECTION 14: RULE AGAINST

PERPETUITY
SECTION 14 is basically an extension of Section 13. Free flow of property is a major
component of public policy. “Perpetuity” is a limitation which places the property forever out
of reach of the exercise of power of alienation. Section 14 prevents property from being
tied up forever since law believes in alienation rather than accumulation.

Section 14 provides-

S.14. RULE AGAINST PERPETUITY- No transfer of property can operate to create an

interest which is to take effect after the life-time of one or more persons living at the date of
 P a g e | 10

such transfer, and the minority of some person who shall be in existence at the expiration of
that period, and to whom, if he attains full age, the interest created is to belong.

ANALYSIS OF SECTION 14:

 The TPA does not permit transfer of property directly in favour of an unborn person.

Thus, in order to transfer a property for the benefit of a person unborn on the date of
transfer, it is imperative that the property must first be transferred in favour of some
other person living on the date of transfer. In other words, the property must vest in
some person between the dates of transfer. In other words, the interest of the unborn
person must, in every case, be preceded by a prior interest.
 Further, where an interest is created in favour of an unborn person on a transfer
of property, such interest in favour of the unborn person shall take effect only if
it extends to the whole of the remaining interest of the transferor in the property,
thereby making it impossible to confer an estate for life on an unborn person. In other
words, the interest in favour of the unborn person shall constitute the entire remaining
interest. The underlying principle in Section 13 is that a person disposing of property
to another shall not fetter the free disposition of that property in the hands of more
than one generation.
 Section 13 does not prohibit successive interests (limited by time or otherwise) being
created in favour of several persons living at the time of transfer. What is prohibited
under section 13 is the grant of interest, limited by time or otherwise, to an unborn
person.
 Further, section 14 of TPA provides that where an interest is created for the benefit of
an unborn person (in accordance with the provisions of section 13), such interest shall
not take effect if the interest is to vest in such unborn person after the life time of one
or more persons living on the date of the transfer (i.e. the person in whose favour the
prior interest is created as required under section 13) and the minority of such unborn
person. In other words, the interest created for the benefit of an unborn person shall
take effect only if the interest is to vest in such unborn person before he attains the
age of 18 years.
 Section 14 further provides that the unborn person, in whose favour the interest is
created, must have come into existence on or before the expiry of the life or lives of
the person(s) in whose favour the prior interest is created as required under section 13.

Section 13 does not specify age until which unborn child gets interest in the property. Section
14 specifies age of majority for the same.

MEANING OF “PERPETUITY”: “Perpetuity” for a beginner means continuous or

unending transaction. The words “creating perpetuity” are not exhaustively defined but it
means ‘pusht dar pusht’ ‘naslan bad naslan’ ‘pidhi dar pidhi’ or ‘generation after generation’.
For example, A transfers his house to B for life and then to B’s children generation after
generation. This is perpetuity.5

5
Tripathi G.P., The Transfer of Property Act, Central Law Publications, Ed. 19th, 2018, p. 144.
 P a g e | 11

MAXIMUM REMOTENESS OF INTEREST THAT CAN BE CREATED: As provided

above, according to Section 20 of the Act, the unborn child, after coming into worldly
existence, acquires absolute interest in the property so transferred to him (even if he takes
birth for just five minutes). However, maximum remoteness of such interest of the unborn in
the property that can be created by the transferor is until the age of majority i.e. 18 years,
after which the interest becomes vested, even if an age more than 18 years is mentioned in the
agreement by the transferor.

Section 14 allows delay of the vesting of interest in the unborn person (who was not born at
the date of transfer of interest) during his minority period i.e. interest vested beyond 18 years
of age would be void. Thus, the maximum remoteness of interest (absolute interest) that can
be created in an unborn child is till the age of majority i.e. 18 years. After 18 years, the
interest would become vested.

PERPETUITY PERIOD: Maximum period during which the property may be rendered
inalienable.

 The extent of property is the life of any person who is alive at the moment when the
deed which creates the interest begins to operate, plus period of 18 years from the
time when such designated person dies.
 The total period of perpetuity i.e, the period for which the vesting of property can be
postponed where the unborn person has come into existence either at or before the
expiry of the last prior interest is his minority period. He must come in womb if not
born.
 Where the unborn person is in womb at the expiry of the last prior interest, the period
of gestation plus minority.6

Therefore, the main essentials of Section 14, in addition to essentials of Section 13, can be
drawn as:

1. The ultimate beneficiary must come into existence (either into the world or in the
womb) before the death of the last preceding living person.
2. Vesting of interest in favour of ultimate beneficiary may be postponed only up to the
life or lives of living persons plus minority of ultimate beneficiary; but not beyond
that.7

For example, A transfers certain property to B for life and then to C for life and then to an
unborn person when he attains the age of majority. B and C are living at the date of transfer
and unborn, the ultimate beneficiary is not in existence even in mother’s womb. The last prior
life interest is with C. When C dies, the contemplated unborn must be in existence either as a
born child or unborn in mother’s womb. The maximum period up to which vesting of
6
Singh Avatar, The Transfer of Property Act, Universal law Publishing CO. PVT. LTD., Allahabad ,(2006), p. 64.
7
Sinha, R.K, The Transfer of Property Act , Central law Agency, Allahabd, 14th ed, p. 100.
 P a g e | 12

property in unborn can be postponed would be, in case of born child, life of C plus till the
child attains the age of majority, and in case of a child in mother’s womb, life of C plus
period of gestation plus period of majority.8

POSITION UNDER ENGLISH LAW:

Under English Law, the specified age for an unborn for acquiring interest in the property is
21 years. If an age more than 21 years is specifically mentioned by the transferor, the
transaction is still valid. However, the interest becomes vested when the person turns 21.

In English Law, vesting of perpetuity may be postponed for any number of lives in being and
an additional term of 21 years afterwards, irrespective of the minority of the person entitled.

Under Indian Law, however, as required under section 13, such ultimate beneficiary must be
born before the termination of the last preceding interest. Accordingly there should not be
any interval between the termination of preceding interest and its consequent vesting in the
ultimate beneficiary; vesting of interest cannot be postponed even for a moment. By way of
relaxing this strict rule of section 13 it is provided in section 14 that vesting of interest may
be postponed but not beyond the life of preceding interest and minority of the ultimate
beneficiary. Where property is made to vest within the period prescribed in this section, the
transfer is valid. Any delay beyond this period would make the transfer void. Accordingly
where a property is transferred to A for life and then to unborn person when he attains the age
of 19 years, the transfer to unborn person is void under section 14.9

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDIAN AND ENGLISH LAW:

1. The minority period in India is 18 years whereas it is 21 years under English

law.
2. The period of gestation should be an actual period under Indian Law but it is a
gross period under English law.
3. Under Indian law, property should be given absolutely to the unborn person
whereas in English law, need not be absolutely given.
4. The unborn person must come into existence before the death of the last life
estate holder as per Indian law whereas he must come into existence within 21
years of the death of the last life estate holder in case of English law.

PERPETUITY EXPLAINED IN STAGES:

STAGE 1- Life time of transferor

8
Supranote 6, p.64.
9
Supranote 7, p.101.
 P a g e | 13

STAGE 2- Living persons or time given to prior estate holders

STAGE 3- Birth of the ultimate transferee

STAGE 4- Minority of ultimate transferee

BEYOND STAGE 4- The property goes to the ultimate beneficiary.

At Stage 1 and 2, the transferor is free to put any condition and may transfer the property to
one or many; concurrently or consecutively, for a day, month, year or life (maximum prior
estate is life estate).

The ultimate transferee was not in existence till Stage 1 or 2. Now at Stage 3 he must be born,
otherwise he loses. If he is born on or before Stage 2, the property would vest in him under
Section 20 of the Transfer of Property Act but if the transferor so wants, vesting can be
postponed till he is minor, not a second thereafter, perpetuity which was valid up to Stage 4,
will be allowed. After that the property will go as the law prescribes.

The rule against perpetuity is applicable to both movable and immovable property. This was
held in the case of Cowasji v. Rustomji.10

EXCEPTIONS:

There are two exceptions to the rule against perpetuity:

I. PERSONAL AGREEMENTS:

The Rule against Perpetuity does not apply to personal agreements; that is the agreements
which do not create an interest in the property. Rule against perpetuity is only applicable to
transfer of property. If there is no transfer of property i.e no transfer of interest, the rule
cannot be applied. Contracts are personal agreements even though contracts relate to rights
and obligation in some property. This is a reciprocal to English Law.

Examples of personal agreements under Indian Law:

 Ram Newaz v. Nankoo11

While examining the transfer of property under Section 14, courts look at the possible events
according to the terms of the deed and not on actual events on the date of transfer.

In this case, R had a share in a village which he sold to the defendant reserving two bighas of
land to himself under the following condition: “Two bighas of land which I have excluded
from sale shall remain in my possession for life, and after my death in the possession of my
lineal descendants……I and my lineal descendants have no right to transfer the land
excluded…… if none of my lineal descendants be alive then land shall be the own property
of the vendee.” This was a transfer to take effect on the date of vendor’s last lineal
descendent. R had only one son who was alive at the date of transfer, but who died childless.
10
20 Bom 511.
11
(1926) 92 I.C. 401.
 P a g e | 14

On actual facts, the transfer operated within the period allowed, but as it was possible that the
transfer might have been postponed for 100 or 200 years until the vendor’s line was extinct,
the reservation of the two bighas was not valid.

Agreement in which we are creating a right from generation to generation without

power of alienation, no interest is created and such agreement also counts as a personal
agreement and is not hit by Section 14 of TPA.

In deciding questions of remoteness, regard must be had to be possible and not to actual
events.12 Where at the time of transfer of property there is possibility or probability that in
future it would be a transfer in perpetuity, the disposition shall be void even if at the time of
actual vesting of interest there is no violation of rule against perpetuity.13

 Nafar Chand v. Kailash Chand14

A shebaits of a temple agreed to appoint the family of C as pujaris for generation to

generation to perform the services in the temple and made provision for the expenses and
remuneration of the office. It was held that the agreement is valid and not affected by the
rule against perpetuity since no interest in the property of the temple is created.

II. TRANSFERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC:

The second exception to rule against perpetuity is Section 18 of Transfer of Property Act.
Where a property is transferred for the benefit of public in the advancement of religion,
knowledge, commerce, health, safety or any other object beneficial to mankind, the transfer is
not void under the rule against perpetuity.15

This exemption is necessary because transfers of property for the benefit of public generally
are made through the medium of religious or charitable trusts. In the trusts, the property
settled is tied up for an indefinite of perpetuity period so that its income may be utilized for
ever for the object for which trust is created. Application of the rule against perpetuity on
trusts would render every trust void and it would be impossible to create any trust for the
benefit of public.16

Waqf property is static and non-transferable by virtue of the Waqf validating Act of 1913.

III. Payment of Debts:

This rule is not applicable where the purpose for accumulation is the payment of debts
incurred by the transferor or any other person having an interest in the transfer.

IV. Accumulation for raising portions:

12
Ram Newaz v. Nankoo (1926) 92 IC 401.
13
Supranote 7, p.103.
14
(1921) 25 C.W.N. 201.
15
Section 18 , Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
16
Supranote 7, p. 104.
 P a g e | 15

 It means providing a share of the income for maintenance. It does not apply to cases where
the accumulation of income is for providing portions to children or for some remote issue of
the transferor or any other person interested in the transfer.

V. Maintenance of property:

Accumulation for the proper maintenance and preservation of the property shall not be void
even if it exceeds the life of the transferor or 18 years from the date of transfer.

Section 14 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is mostly identical to Section 114 of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925. Section 114 of the Indian Succession Act also lays down the
Rule against Perpetuity but only in case of transfer of property to an unborn person
through a will.

Section 114 of Indian Succession Act provides that:

114. Rule against perpetuity.—No bequest is valid whereby the vesting of the thing
bequeathed may be delayed beyond the life-time of one or more persons living at the
testator’s death and the minority of some person who shall be in existence at the expiration of
that period, and to whom, if he attains full age, the thing bequeathed is to belong.

Illustrations

1. A fund is bequeathed to A for his life and after his death to B for his life; and after B’s
death to such of the sons of B as shall first attain the age of 25. A and B survive the
testator. Here the son of B who shall first attain the age of 25 may be a son born after
the death of the testator; such son may not attain 25 until more than 18 years have
elapsed from the death of the longer liver of A and B; and the vesting of the fund may
thus be delayed beyond the lifetime of A and B and the minority of the sons of B. The
bequest after B’s death is void.
2. A fund is bequeathed to A for his life, and after his death to B for his life, and after
B’s death to such of B’s sons as shall first attain the age of 25. B dies in the lifetime
of the testator, leaving one or more sons. In this case the sons of B are persons living
at the time of the testator’s decease, and the time when either of them will attain 25
necessarily falls within his own lifetime. The bequest is valid.
3. A fund is bequeathed to A for his life, and after his death to B for his life, with a
direction that after B’s death it shall be divided amongst such of B’s children as shall
attain the age of 18, but that, if no child of B shall attain that age, the fund shall go to
C. Here the time for the division of the fund must arrive at the latest at the expiration
of 18 years from the death of B, a person living at the testator’s decease. All the
bequests are valid.
4. A fund is bequeathed to trustees for the benefit of the testator’s daughters, with a
direction that, if any of them marry under age, her share of the fund shall be settled so
as to devolve after her death upon such of her children as shall attain the age of 18.
Any daughter of the testator to whom the direction applies must be in existence at his
decease, and any portion of the fund which may eventually be settled as directed must
 P a g e | 16

vest not later than 18 years from the death of the daughters whose share it was. All
these provisions are valid.

CONCLUSION
The effect of these Rules is that a transfer/ gift can be made to an unborn person subject to
the following conditions:

1. That the transfer/ gift shall be of the whole of the remaining interest of the transferor/
testator in the thing transferred/ bequeathed and not of a limited interest; and
2. That the vesting is not postponed beyond the life in being and the minority of the
unborn person.

In simple terms, while section 13 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 lays down the mechanism
for transfer of property for the benefit of unborn person and "what property" is required to be
ultimately transferred in favour of an unborn person in order to validate such transfer, section
14 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides the "maximum period as to when" such
property can be vested upon such unborn person.

Section 14 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 supplements section 13 of Transfer of Property

Act, 1882 and thus, it is pertinent to note that when an interest in any property is intended to
be transferred in favour of an unborn person, sections 13 and 14 of Transfer of Property Act,
1882 are required to be read together and the provisions contained thereunder are required to
be duly complied with, in order to give effect to the intended transfer in favour of such
unborn person.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Avtar Singh, The Transfer of Property Act, Universal law Publishing CO. PVT. LTD.,
Allahabad, (2006).
2. Dr. G.P. Tripathi, The Transfer of Property Act, Central law Publications, Allahabad,
Ed. 19th, 2018.
3. Dr. R.K. Sinha, The Transfer of Property Act, Central law Agency Allahabad, Ed.
14th.

WEBLIOGRAPHY
1. Available at < https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/transfer-property-unborn/>,
visited on 17th Nov.,2019, at 8:00 p.m.
2. Available at < https://blog.ipleaders.in/transfer-to-unborn-person/>, visited on 17th
Nov.,2019, at 10:00 p.m.
 P a g e | 17

3. Available at
<https://www.academia.edu/Transfer_of_Property_to_Unborn_under_TPA>, visited
on 17th Nov.,2019, at 10:00 p.m.