Legal Status of Perfect and Imperfect Title in Property: A Historical Analysis

Legal Status of Perfect and Imperfect Title in Property: A Historical Analysis
By
Mitali Srivastava
5th Year B.A. LLB (Hons)
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala, Punjab, India.
Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897
CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
The term Title is derived from the term Titlus of Roman law and Titre of French law. According
to Salmond, title is the fifth element of legal right. Every legal right has a title, that is to say,
certain facts or events by reason of which the right has become vested in the owner. However,
Holland does not include title as an element of a legal right. Austin does not approve of the use
of title for right. His contention is that title is not the right itself but merely an element of right.
While title indicates the idea of an investitive fact, right is a power; faculty or capacity conferred
on a person and is founded in the title. The party entitle is invested with right by the investive
fact.
Legal rights are created by title. A person has a right to a thing because he has a title to that
thing. According to Justice Holmes, Every right is a consequence attached by the law to one or
more facts which the law defines and wherever the law gives anyone special right, not shared by
the body of the people, it does so on the ground that certain special facts not true of the rest of
the world are true to him. It is these special facts that create a title. Title means any fact which
creates a right or duty. If a law confers a right upon one man which it does not confer upon
another, the reason is that certain facts are true of him who are not true of the other and these
facts are the title of the right. A person may acquire right on account of his birth or he may
acquire the same by personal efforts later on but in both cases title is essential. Title is the root
from which the rights proceed.
Holland does not approve of the use of the term title as it does not indicate the facts which
transfer or extinguish rights. A fact giving rise to a right has long been described as a title, but no
such well-worn equivalent can be found for a fact through, which a right is transferred or for one
by which a right is extinguished. Bentham also objects to the use of the term title and suggests
the term dispositive facts. He divides the dispositive facts into three parts: investitive facts,
divestitive facts and translative facts. He re-divides the investitive facts into collative facts and
impositive facts.
2|Page
Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897
The main rights in the title bundle are usually:
 Exclusive possession
 Exclusive use and enclosure
 Acquisition
 Conveyance, including by bequest
 Access easement
 Hypothecation
 Partition
The rights in real property may be separated further, examples including:
 Water rights, including riparian rights and runoff rights

 In some U.S. states, water rights are completely separate from land—see prior
appropriation water rights
 Mineral rights
 Easement to neighboring property, for utility lines, etc.
 Tenancy or tenure in improvements
 Timber rights
 Farming rights
 Grazing rights
 Hunting rights
 Air rights
 Development rights to erect improvements under various restrictions
 Appearance rights, often subjected to local zoning ordinances and deed restrictions
In countries with a sophisticated private property system, documents of title are commonly used
for real estate, motor vehicles, and some types of intangible property. When such documents are
used, they are often part of a registration system whereby ownership of such property can be
verified. In some cases, a title can also serve as a permanent legal record of condemnation of
property, such as in the case of an automobile junk or salvage title. In the case of real estate, the
legal instrument used to transfer title is the deed. A famous rule is that a thief cannot convey
3|Page
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

good title, so title searches are routine for purchases of many types of expensive property. In
several counties and municipalities in the US a standard title search is required under the law as a
part of ownership transfer.1
Title is the sum total of legally recognized rights to the possession and ownership of property.
This means whereby the owner of lands hath the just possession of his property. This is the
definition of title to lands only. There are several stages or degrees requisite to form a complete
title to lands and tenements. The degrees are:
1. The lowest and most imperfect degree of title is the mere possession, or actual occupation
of the estate, without any apparent right to hold or continue such possession.
2. The next step to a good and perfect title is the right of possession, which may reside in
one man, while the actual possession is not in himself, but in another. This right of
possession is of two sorts; an apparent right of possession, which may be defeated by
proving a better; and an actual right of possession, which will stand the test against all
opponents.
3. The mere right of property, the jus proprietatis without either possession or the right of
possession.
A title is good, marketable, doubtful, or bad. A good title is that which entitles a man by right to
a property or estate, and to the lawful possession of the same. A marketable title is one which a
court of equity considers to be so clear that it will enforce its acceptance by a purchaser. The
ordinary acceptation of the term marketable title would convey but a very imperfect notion of its
legal and technical import. All titles being either good or bad, the former would be considered
marketable, the latter non-marketable. But this is not the way they are regarded in courts of
equity, the distinction taken there being not between a title which is absolutely good or
absolutely bad, but between a title, which the court considers to be so clear that it will enforce its
acceptance by a purchaser, and one which the court will not go so far as to declare a bad title, but
only that it is subject to so much doubt that a purchaser ought not to be compelled to accept it. In
short, whatever may be the private opinion of the court, as to the goodness of the title yet if there
be a reasonable doubt either as to a matter of law or fact involved in it, a purchaser will not be
1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_(property)
4|Page

compelled to complete his purchase; and such a title, though it may be perfectly secure and
unimpeachable as a holding title is said, in the current language of the day, to be unmarketable.
The doctrine of marketable titles is purely equitable and of modern origin. At law every title not
bad is marketable. A doubtful title is one which the court does not consider to be so clear that it
will enforce its acceptance by a purchaser, nor so defective as to declare it a bad title, but only
subject to so much doubt that a purchaser ought not to be compelled to accept it. At common
law, doubtful titles are unknown; there every title must be either good or bad. A bad title is one
which conveys no property to a purchaser of an estate. Title to real estate is acquired by two
methods, namely, by descent and by purchase.
Title to personal property may accrue in three different ways.
1. By original acquisition.
2. By transfer, by act of law.
3. By transfer, by, act of the parties.
Title by original acquisition is acquired,
1. By occupancy- This mode of acquiring title has become almost extinct in civilized
governments, and it is permitted to exist only in those few special cases, in which it may be
consistent with the public good. First. Goods taken by capture in war were, by the common law,
adjudged to belong to the captor, but now goods taken from enemies in time of war, vest
primarily in the sovereign, and they belong to the individual captors only to the extent and under
such regulations, as positive laws may prescribe2. Secondly. Another instance of acquisition by
occupancy, which still exists under certain limitations, is that of goods casually lost by the
owner, and unreclaimed, or designedly abandoned by him; and in both these cases they belong to
the fortunate finder.
2. Title by original acquisition is acquired by accession.
2
Source: http://www.xomba.com/vested_and_contingent_interest, visited on 4 November 2010, at 6:00pm.
5|Page

3. It is acquired by intellectual labour- It consists of literary property as the construction of maps

and charts, the writing of books and papers. The benefits arising from such labour are secured to
the owner. 1. By patent rights for inventions. 2.By copyrights.
The title to personal property is acquired and lost by transfer, by act of law, in various ways.
1. By forfeiture.
2. By succession.
3. By marriage.
4. By judgment.
5. By insolvency.
6. By intestacy.
Title is also acquired and lost by transfer by the act of the party.
1. By gift.
2. By contract or sale.
In general, possession constitutes the criterion of title of personal property, because no other
means exist by which a knowledge of the fact to whom it belongs can be attained 3. A seller of a
chattel is not, therefore, required to show the origin of his title, nor, in general, is a purchaser,
with-out notice of the claim of the owner, compellable to make restitution; but, it seems, that a
purchaser from a tenant for life of personal chattels, will not be secure against the claims of those
entitled in remainder.4 To the rule that possession is the criterion of title of property may be
mentioned the case of ships, the title of which can be ascertained by the register. To convey a
title the seller must himself have a title to the property which is the subject of the transfer.
3
Source: http://kbcd.blogspot.com/2008/08/definition-contingent-and-vested.html,visited on 8 November 2010, at
7:30pm.
4
Source: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/vested-interest.html, visited on 7 November 2010, at
2:00pm.
6|Page

But to this general rule there are exceptions.
1. The lawful coin of the United States will pass the property along with the possession.
2. A negotiable instrument endorsed in blank is transferable by any person holding it, so as by

its delivery to give a good title “to any person honestly acquiring it.” 5
Paramount title is the best title in Fee simple available for the true owner. The person who is
owner of real property with paramount title has the higher right in an action to Quiet title. The
concept is inherently a relative one. Technically, paramount title is not always the best title, since
it is necessarily based on some other person’s title.
A Quiet title action is a lawsuit to settle competing claims or rights to real property, for
example, missing heirs, tenants, reverters, remainders and lien holders all competing to get
ownership to the house or land6. Each of the United States has different procedures for a quiet
title action.
However, most personal property items do not have a formal document of title. For such items,
possession is the simplest indication of title, unless the circumstances give rise to suspicion about
the possessor’s ownership of the item. Proof of legal acquisition, such as a bill of sale or
purchase receipt, is contributory. Transfer of possession to a good faith purchaser will normally
convey title if no document is required.
Aborginal title
Prior to the establishment of the United States title to Indian lands in lands controlled by Britain
in North America was governed by The Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763. This
proclamation by King George III reserved title in land to the Indians, subject to alienation only
by the Crown. This continued to be the law of Canada following the American Revolution. In the
5
Source: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t030.htm, visited on 9 November 2010, at 5:30pm.
6
Source: http://instruct.uwo.ca/law/425/module3/part4/m3p4a.htm, visited on 5 November 2010, at 5:34pm.
7|Page

United States Indian title is the subservient title held by Native Americans in the United States to
the land they customarily claimed and occupied.7
It very early became accepted doctrine in this Court that although fee title to lands occupied by
Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign - first the discovering
European nation and later the original states and the United States - a right of occupancy in the
Indian tribes was nevertheless recognized. That right, sometimes called Indian Title and good
against all but the sovereign, could be terminated only by sovereign act. Once the United States
was organized and the Constitution adopted, these tribal rights to Indian lands became the
exclusive province of the federal law. Indian title, recognized to be only a right of occupancy,
was extinguishable only by the United States.8
Aboriginal title refers to the Indians’ exclusive right to use and occupy lands they have inhabited
from time immemorial, but that have subsequently become discovered by European settlers.
Aboriginal Indian title derived from the doctrine of discovery provided that discovering nations
held fee title to these lands, subject to the Indians’ right of occupancy, and use. After conquest,
Indians were permitted to occupy portions of territory over which they had previously exercised
sovereignty. This aboriginal title, however, was not inviolable. Specifically, Indians were secure
in their possession of aboriginal land until their aboriginal title was extinguished by the
sovereign discoverer. No one could purchase Indian land or otherwise terminate aboriginal title
without the consent of the sovereign. The sovereign possessed exclusive power to extinguish the
right of occupancy at will.9
Classification of Titles
Titles are also called investive facts or facts as a result of which a right comes to be vested in its
owner. Salmond divides the vestitive facts in to two parts, viz., investitive facts or titles and
7
Johnson v. M'Intosh , 21 U.S. (8 Wheat) 543 (1823).
8
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida , 414 U.S. 661, 667 (1974).
9
Source: 9 http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/AboriginalTitle.aspx, visited on 5 November 2010, at
6:00pm.
8|Page

divestitive. Investitive facts or titles are divided into original titles and derivative titles.
Divestitive facts are divided into alienative facts and extinctive facts. Vestitive facts are those
which have relation to right. They relate to the creation, extinction and transfer of rights.
Investitive facts create and divestitive facts destroy them. A right created may have no prior
existence; such a right is called original title. Examples of original title are my catching fish from
the river, my writing a new book, my invention of a new machine, etc. If a right is created by the
transfer of an existing right, it is called a derivative title. If I buy fish from fisherman who has
caught the same from a river, my title is a derivative one. If the author of a book assigns the
copyright of his book to another person, the latter acquires a derivative title. The facts of which
the legal result is to destroy rights are called extinctive divestitive facts. The facts of which legal
result is to transfer rights from the owner are called alienative divestitive facts. 10
It is to be noted that in case of a transfer of a right, the same facts are derivative investitive facts
and alienative divestitive facts. If I sell my fish to X, it is derivative title so far as X is concerned
and alienative divestitive fact so far as I am concerned. The main features of vestitive facts are
that they either create a right or extinguish it or transfer it from one person to another.
According to Bentham, dispositive facts can be divided into three parts, viz., investitive facts,
divestitive facts and translative facts. Translative facts refer to the transferring of rights and
duties. Investitive facts are divided into two parts: collative and impositive facts. Collative facts
confer rights and impositive facts impose duties. Divestitive facts are subdivided into destructive
and exonerative facts. Destructive divestitive facts end rights and exonerative divestitive facts
release persons from duties.
According to another classification, vestitive facts operate in pursuance of a human will or

independently of the same. They are divided into two categories: acts of the law and acts in the
law. Acts in the law are further divided into unilateral acts and bilateral acts unilateral acts are
either subject to dissent or independent of the same. Bilateral acts or agreements are of four
kinds, viz., contracts, grants, assignments and releases. Contracts and grants are either creative or
extinctive. Those are also valid or invalid.
10
Source: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/AboriginalTitle.aspx, visited on 8 November 010, at 6:00pm.
9|Page

10 | P a g e

CHAPTER- 2
CONCEPT OF OWNERSHIP
The concept of ownership is one of the fundamental juristic concepts common to all systems of
law. It has it origin in the ancient Roman law. Perhaps of all the rights, right to ownership is the
most important right. The earlier legal systems didn’t recognize the distinction between
ownership and possession. It was with the advancement of the civilization that the two were
considered as separate and distinct concepts. In Roman law ownership and possession were
respectively termed as ‘dominium’ and ‘possessio’. The term dominium denoted absolute right
to a thong, while possession implied only physical control over it. In the ancient and the
medieval English law also the concept of ownership developed much later than possession. The
term ownership was used in English law for the first time in 1583, when it was distinguished
from possession. Holdsworth observed that the English law accepted the concept of ownership
have an absolute right through gradual development in the law of possession11.
Jurists have defined ownership in different ways. All of them however accept that the right of
ownership is most complete or supreme right that can be exercised over anything. According to
Hibbert ownership includes within it four kinds of rights.
1) Right to use a thing.

2) Right to exclude others from doing a thing.
3) Disposing a thing
4) Right to destroy it.
In Black’s Law Dictionary, ownership has been defined as “collection of rights to use and enjoy
property, including right it to transmit it to others”. Therefore, ownership is dejure recognition of
a claim to a certain property12.
Austin defines ownership “as a right which avails against everyone who is subject to the law
conferring the right to put thing to user of indefinite nature. He further says that, ownership is a
11
Wacks Raymond, Understanding Jurisprudence, Seacond Edition, Oxford University Press.
12
Ibid.
11 | P a g e

“a right indefinite in point of user unrestricted in point of disposition and unlimited in point of
duration”.
According to Salmond, “ownership, in its most comprehensive signification, denotes the relation
between a person and right that is vested in him”. Thus, in its generic sense ownership signifies
the relation between the person of inherence and the object of ownership. It consists in a
complex of rights which are rights in rem. In Salmonds view ownership exhibits the following
incidents.
1. An owner shall have a right to possess a thing which he owes. He may however not
necessarily, in actual possession of it.
2. He has normally the right to use and enjoy the thing owned.
3. The owner has a right to use, consume enjoy or alienate the thing.
4. Ownership has the characterics of being in determinate in duration.
5. Owner has a residuary character
The right to ownership was also recognized under ancient Indian law. The great commentators
notably, Narada, Yagnavalika,Vyas etc. and emphasized that right of ownership of property was
to be used good noble cause and good motives13. The ancient Hindu law ordained man to behave
in particular manner in relation to a person or property of other. They were warned that misuse of
the right of ownership would entail them moral or public indignation and they would be liable
for punishment. The ancient Hindu jurists mentioned seven modes of acquisition of ownership of
property namely-
1) Inheritance
2) Gain
3) Purchase
4) Conquest
5) Investment of wealth
6) Employment
7) Acceptance of Gifts
13
Source: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/AboriginalTitle.aspx, visited on 10 November 2010, at
6:00pm.
12 | P a g e

According to Manu, only property of king or estate could be acquired by conquest, but the kings
had no right to inerter or acquire private property of the subject of the conquered territory14. As
regard the property of no one’s land. Manu says that it belong to it first who reclaimed it under
cultivation. Where a thing has no previous owner such as bird or a fish, the rule of res nullius
was to apply and the one who took it first was its owner. In case of some treasure was discovered
the person who founded took the whole of it, if it was found on his land and if it was found on
some others land, he could acquire only half of it. Even under the present Indian law no person
can have absolute ownership of property because this right has been restricted by statues and
regulations. Such as ceiling laws, rent control enactments, company regulations etc.
Characterics of ownership
1) Ownership ma either is absolute or restricted. That is it may be exclusive or limited. It

can be limited by agreements or by operation of law. When a land or a thing is owned by
one own, they are called co-owners and the right of each co-owner is limited to the right
of other co-owners.
2) The right of ownership can be restricted at the time of emergency. For instance. Building
or a land hold by a private individual can be requisitioned and used for lodging army
personnel during the war15.
3) An owner is not allowed to use his land or property in a manner that it is injurious to
others. In this sense his right of ownership is not unrestricted16.
4) Restrictions may also be imposed by law on the owners right of disposable of the thing
owned. Thus any alienation of property made with intent to defeat or delay the claim of
creditors can be set aside. The power of disposition can also be limited by the existence
of rights of encumbrance such as a mortgagee etc. the owners in India and in most of the
countries are not free to sell their property to aliens.
5) The owner has right to possess a thing which he owns, it is immaterial whether he has
actual possession of it or not. The most common example is an owner leaving his house
to a tenant, where tenant is an actual possession but the ownership still remains with the
15
Hannah v Peel,1945 1KB 509.
16
Rylads v Flecther 1868 3 HL 330.
13 | P a g e

landlord. Again when a car is hire or stolen, the possession remain s with the person who
has hired or stolen it, but the owner of it.
6) Law does not confer ownership on an unborn child or an insane person because they are
incapable of conceiving the nature and consequence of their acts.
7) Ownership is residuary in character.
8) The right to ownership does not end with the death of the owner, instead it is transferred
to its affairs.
Subject matter of Ownership
Ordinarily the subject matter of ownership consists of material objects like land, chattels etc. the
wealth and assets of a person such as interests in the land, debts due to him, share ina company,
patents, copyrights etc. may also be subject matter of ownership. Thus, intangible rights may alo
constitute subject matter of ownership. Salmond also supports this view that besides material
objects, right may also be subject matter of ownership though a man is said ‘not to own, but to
have a right’. From this point of view many rights cannot be considered as subject matter of
ownership, like everyone has a right of freedom of speech or right of reputation but it is never
said that he owns these rights, nor can he alienate them.
Acquisition of ownership
From the point of view of acquisition of ownership, things may be of two kinds namely things
over which no one has ownership, they are called res nelus and their ownership can be acquire by
possession17. But there are things which are already owned by someone, the ownership over
them can be acquired by derivative method. According to Salmond ownership can be acquired in
two ways-
1) By operation of law.
2) By some act or event.
A person can become the owner of certain property by the operation of law, such as the late of
intestacy or bankruptcy18. It can also be acquired by reason of an act or event such as taking or
17
Source: http://www.expresscomputeronline.com/20050404/technologylife01.shtml, visited on 6 November 2010,
at 7:00pm.
18
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ownership, visited on 4 November 2010, at 5:00pm.
14 | P a g e

making a thing for the first time. Both these cases involve original acquisition of ownership; nice
new owner derives the title from his predecessor.
Different kinds of ownership
The right to ownership is generally exclusive, immediate, unconditional and beneficial. It is

however not necessary that all these elements must be present in ownership. Therefore there may
be different kinds of ownership depending on the existence or absence of any elements in it. For
instance, if a person doesn’t have exclusive right of ownership over a thing and there are more
than one owner of that thing than each of such owners would be its co-owner. Likewise if the
ownership is dependent on a certain condition, than it would be a conditional ownership.
Different types of ownership can be explained under the following heads.
1) Corporeal and Incorporeal Ownership

The ownership of material object is called corporeal ownership whereas ownership of a
right is called incorporeal ownership. Thus, the ownership of a house, land, table,
machinery etc. is a corporeal ownership and the ownership of a copy right, patent, trade
mark, is in Incorporeal Ownership.
2) Sole ownership and Co-ownerhip
It means a single person has the authority to sign a deed to sell, rent, or lease a property
and no one else can do the same with the property. Normally, there is no chance of
conflict in transaction of individual ownership properties. But the owner's not staying in
the same town may lead to a trouble. In such cases a power of attorney may be given to a
trustworthy person to handle and take decision on the property related issues. The owner
can decide his successor of the property and make a will in favor of the successor
accordingly. In Joint ownership any one of the owners has the right to decide on a
property, and it eliminates the need of a power of attorney if one of the owners is absent.
The surviving owner becomes the sole owner of the property in case of the death of the
other owner. Therefore, the survivor ship and the security come automatically19.
3) Trust and Beneficial Ownership
19
Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?Rules-of-Property-Ownership-in-India---Deciding-the-Name-of-the-Owner-
Requires-Special-Attention&id=1294171, visited on 4 November 2010, at 5:45 pm.
15 | P a g e

Yet another peculiar species of duplicate ownership is trust ownership in which property
is owned by two persons at same time. The relation between them is such that one of
them is under an obligation to use his ownership for the benefit of another. The right of a
party to some profit, distribution, or benefit from a contract or trust. A beneficial interest
is distinguished from the rights of someone like a trustee or official who has
responsibility to perform and/or title to the assets, but does not share in the benefits.
4) Legal and Equitable Ownership

Sometimes one person may be the legal owner and another equitable owner of the same
thing or right at the same time. For example, when a debt is verbally assigned by A to B.
a remains the legal owner of it, but become the equitable owner of it. Thus the debt is
only one although now it has two owners.
5) Absolute and Limited Ownership
If all the rights of ownership, i.e. possession, enjoyment and disposal are vested in a
person without any restriction, the ownership is absolute. But when there are retractions
as to user, duration or disposal, the ownership is limited ownership.
6) Vested and Contingent Ownership
In vested ownership the title of owner is already perfect, while in contingent his title is
yet imperfect, but is capable of becoming perfect on fulfillment of some conditions.
16 | P a g e

CHAPTER-3
PERFECT TITLE – CONCEPT OF VESTED INTEREST
In vested ownership the title of the owner is already perfect. Ownership is absolute, it creates an
immediate right and it does not depend upon fulfillment of any condition. It is transferable and
heritable. In case of vested ownership, the investitive fact from which he derives the right is
complete in all its parts. In English law, an estate may be vested even though it does not give a
right to immediate possession. On a devise to X for life with remainder to Y in fee simple, the
interest of y is vested because there is nothing but the prior interest of X to stand between him
and the actual enjoyment of the land. Technically speaking, the interest of Y is vested in interest,
though not vested in possession. It becomes vested in possession only on the death of X. If a
Hindu widow adopt a son but there is an agreement postponing the estate of the son during the
lifetime of the widow, the interest created in favour of the adopted son is vested right. It does not
depend upon the condition precedent. If it is to take effect on the happening of an event which is
certain (the death of the widow), the adopted son has a present proprietary right in the estate, the
right of possession and enjoyment being deferred20. He can transfer the property even during the
lifetime of the widow.
Under a deed of gift, a done is not to take possession of the gifted property until after the death
of the donor and his wife. The done is given a vested interest subject only to the life interest of
the donor and his wife. The done can transfer the property during the lifetime of the donor and
his wife.
Under a compromise decree, it was settled that X was to hold an estate till his death after which
it was to go to Y. the interest acquired by Y under the decree is a vested interest as it was bound
to take effect from the death of X which was a certain event. A vested interest is regarded as a
property which is divisible, transferable and heritable21.
According, to section 19 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on a transfer of property, an

22
interest therein is created in favour of a person without specifying the time where it is to take
20
Dr.Paranjape N.V.,Studies In Jurisprudence and Legal Theory,Central Law Agency, Allahabad
21
ibid.
17 | P a g e

effect forthwith or on the happening of an event which must happen, such interest is vested,
unless a contrary intention appears from the terms of the transfer
An intention that an interest shall not be vested is not to be inferred merely from a provision
whereby the enjoyment thereof is postponed, or whereby a prior interest in the same property is
given or reserved to some other person, or whereby income arising from the property is directed
to be accumulated until the time of enjoyment arrives, or from a provision that if a particular
event shall happen the interest shall pass to another person.
Section 19 and the corresponding section 119 of the Succession Act, 1925 deals with the
question under what circumstances a person obtains a vested interest or immediate right on a
transfer of property23. It provides that unless a contrary intention appears from the terms of trade
of transfer, a person gets a vested interest when it is created in his favour-
1. Without specifying the time, when it is to take effect.

2. In terms specifying, that it is to take effect forthwith
3. In term of specifying, that it is to take effect, on the happening of an event, which must
happen
i. Time not mentioned- If a property is transferred by A to B and the deed of transfer
does not mention, the exact time from which the transfer shall come into effect, it is
normal construction of law, that in such a case the transferee gets vested interest. For
example, A sells his house to B. B gets vested interest from the day of sale. He get
right at once through possession may not be given to him immediately.
ii. Forthwith- the second situation giving birth to vested interest consists in those cases,
when the deed of transfer mentions clearly that the transfer is to take effect at once
and forthwith. With such a thing being clearly mentioned, the deed conveys vested
interest alone24.
iii. Certain event- the third situation of a vested interest occurs in those cases when the
operation of the transfer is made to depend upon some specified certain event. The
event must be clearly explained and legibly fixed and its occurrence should be only a
matter of time. It should be of a nature as to “must happen”. Interest that is dependent
23
Source: http://www.theperfecttitle.com/, visited on 6 November 2010, at 6:00pm.
24
Source: http://www.investorwords.com/3664/perfect_title.html, visited on 8 November 2010, at 6:00pm.
18 | P a g e

upon such event is classed as a vested one. For example, transfer to B if A dies, or at
sunset or sunrise. There are events which are both 1. Specified, 2. And certain.
Therefore, transfer to B creates vested interest.
Postponement of Enjoyment
Section 11 states a condition postponing enjoyment cannot prevent the interest vesting
immediately; but it is itself void for repugnancy after the transferee has attained majority. For
example, A transfers property to B in trust for C, and directs B to give possession of the property
to C when he attains the age of 25. C has a vested interest and is entitled to possession at the age
of 18. In the case of Gosling v. Gosling25, Vice- Chancellor Wood said; “ the practice of this
court has always been to recognize the right of all persons who attain the age of 21 to enter upon
the absolute use and enjoyment of the property given to them by Will, notwithstanding any
direction by the testator to the effect that they are not to enjoy it until a later age unless, during
the interval, the property is given for the benefit of another.” In India the similar rule has been
accepted except that there is no limit numerically fixed as above. The period up to which the
enjoyment of a vested interest may be postponed I matter of fact for the parties to decide. In
another case, A executed a deed of gift in favour of B, but directed that B was not to take
possession of a portion of the property until after the deaths of A and A’s wife. B has vested
interest, enjoyment only being postponed26
Prior Interest
Section 13 states that, a prior interest does not postpone the vesting of the subsequent interest.
Section 13 provides a specific example of such rule. For example, A fund is given to A for life,
and after his death to B, on the testator’s death, the legacy to B becomes vested interest in B. the
expression “ after his death’ refers to the time when the gift becomes reduced to possession and
not to the time when the interest vests. In the case of Rewun Prasad’s case27 the testator gave hi
wife a life estate and after her death one share of the estate to his brother B, and the other share
25
1859 Johns, 265
26
Lachhman v. Baldeo, 48 I.C. 396
27
Rewun Prasad v. Radha Beeby, 1846 4 M.I.A 137
19 | P a g e

to his sons C and D. B and C die during the lifetime of the widow, but as their shares were
vested, and as C and D took as tenants in common C’s widow was entitled to succeed to C’s
share.
Property is settled in trust to A for life with a direction to the trustees to pay A Rs. 2,000 a year
out of the rents and profits and to apply the balance to the discharge of a mortgage; and after A’s
death to convey the land to B. Although, B may not survive A, yet B’s interest is vested in A’s
lifetime.28
In Rajes Kanta Roy v. Santi Devi,29 a question arose, as to whether the interest which developed
upon two minor sons under settlement made by the father vested or contingent. The settlement
provided in substance that sons would obtain an absolute interest upon the death of the father and
after discharging the debts of the father. The court observed that the settler clearly contemplated
that there would be, as in fact, there was, a surplus after the payment of the debts and held that
there can be no doubt about the rule that where the enjoyment of the property is postponed but
the present income thereof is to be applied for the benefit of the done, the gift is vested and not
contingent30. This rule operates normally where the entire income is applied for the benefit of the
done.
Accumulation of Income
Section 17 states that, a direction for accumulation of income if in excess of the period
sanctioned by section 17 is invalid for the excess. Within the limits sanctioned by the section, it
is a provision for the postponement of enjoyment, and as such it does not postpone the vesting of
the interest.
Conditional Limitation
28
Uzoe v. Ma Mya May, 1930 127 I.C. 170
29
1957 S.C.R 77
30
Source: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perfect-title.asp, visited on 5 November 2010, at 7:00pm.
20 | P a g e

Section 28 states that, a provision that if a particular event shall happen, the interest shall pass to
another person is what is called in English law a conditional limitation. A conditional limitation
divests an estate which has vested and vests it in another person. A condition subsequent divest
an estate which has vested and revests it in the grantor. Section 28 deals with conditional
limitations, whereas conditions subsequent are dealt with in section 31.
Test to determine whether is vested or not
Whether an interest is vested or otherwise, depends on the intention of the person crating the
interest. Such intention must, however, be gathered from the language employed by the grantor
in the grant, giving the plain and natural meaning to the words used by him. The document must
be constructed as a whole giving attention to every previous therein. An interest is vested when it
is subjected to any condition precedent, when it is to take effect on the happening of the event
which is certain. A person takes a vested interest in the property when he acquires a proprietary
right in it but the right of enjoyment is only deferred till a future event happens which is certain
to happen. If a Hindu widow adopted a son but there was an agreement postponing the son’s
estate during the lifetime of the widow, the interest, created in favour of the adopted son is a
vested right, it does not depend upon condition precedent, i.e., the performance of an act; it is to
take on the happening of an event which is certain, i.e., widow’s death, the adopted son has a
present proprietary right in the estate, the right to enjoyment and possession being deferred and
therefore, he can transfer the property during the lifetime of widow.31
Time of vesting- as soon as the transfer is complete the interest vests. Words are to be construed
according to their ordinary meeting and no particular form of words is necessary to effect a
vesting32.
Contrary intention- the grantor has liberty to specify the time of vesting for under section 5, a
transfer may not be only in present but also in future. But the time of vesting cannot be beyond
the period allowed by the rule against perpetuity. In Wrightson’s 33 case, the testator by a codicil
to his will directed that no devise should have a vested interest or be entitled to possession until
attainment of the age of 24. This provision invalidated the future interests given in the will.
31
40 All, 692
32
Dr. Dwivedi S.P.,Jurisprudence and Legal Theory,, Central Publications, Allabahad.
33
In re, Wrightson, 1904 2 ch. 95
21 | P a g e

Death of transferee- when an interest is vested it becomes the property of the transferee and is
under section 6, transferable by him even before he has attained possession; for a transfer of
property not in possession is effective. If a transferee dies his interest I vested in his
representatives even if he has not obtained possession. In the case of Rajes Kant Roy v. Santi
Devi34 , father settled the property on his two minor sons. The settlement provided that the sons
would take absolute interest in the property upon the death of the transferor and after discharging
all his encumbrances. The Supreme Court held that the sons got a vested interest, though
enjoyment was temporarily postponed.
Hindu law and Muslim law
The amendment of section 2 makes section 19 applicable to Hindus. In a case of Ram Kumar v.
Atma Singh35 the testator devised his estate to his sons and directed that the widow should
manage it during her lifetime. It was held, that the estate vested immediately in the sons and as
the widow was given no prior interest they were entitled to immediate possession. In another
case of Srinivasa v. Danapani36, there was a transfer to a daughter with a direction to enjoy the
income and pass the corpus intact to her son. The daughter took a vested interest but the direction
was ineffective and the son who predeceased her took no interest at all. It has also been held that
under Hindu law the creation of partial trusts and charges will not postpone the vesting in
possession.
Sunni law does not recognize an estate for life with a vested remainder. There is some doubt as
to whether the law on this point has been altered by the decision of the Privy Council.37 It led to
a difference of opinion from that of held in an another case of Rasool Bibi v. Yusuf Ajam 38 in
this case such estates were held as recognized in Shia law. A life estate with a vested remainder
is recognized both by Shia’s and Sunni’s and by the Muslim Waqf Validating act,1913, in the
case of waqfs.
34
1957, S.C.R 77
35
1927, 8 lah, 181
36
1886, 12 Mad. 411
37
Amjad Khan v. Ashraf Khan, 1929, 56 I.A 213
38
1933, 57 Bom. 737
22 | P a g e

Vested interest of an unborn person- According to section 20, where on a transfer of property
an interest therein is created for the benefit of a person not then living, he acquires upon his birth,
unless contrary intention appears from the terms of the transfer, a vested interest, although he
may not be entitled to the enjoyment thereof immediately on his birth. An interest created for the
benefit of an unborn person vests as soon as the person is born. Thus if a settles property on
himself and his intended wife for their joint lives and then on the eldest son of their marriage ,
the son takes a vested interest as soon as he is born. It matters not that he is not entitled to
possession during the lifetime of his parents. Nor will the vesting be affected by the provision
that if his parents die during his minority the trustees should not deliver possession to him until
he attains majority. In a case, a bequest is made in favour of T for life and thereafter to the
children of T absolutely. T is married and a daughter, named K, is born to him. The daughter, K
predeceased T. thereafter, T by a will bequeaths the property absolutely to X. in such a case, K
acquires a vested interest in the property by birth. T, being K’s heir gets absolute title to the
property and, therefore, the bequest by T is valid.39 This section makes clear that child in the
womb is not a living person. So to him property cannot be given direct. Mechanisms of prior and
absolute interests are needed. Child not even in womb can get property only when requirement of
section 14 in addition to section 13 are met. Child in womb is a person in existence but not a
living person.
39
Nusserwanji v. Gurcher, 1946 Bom. 134
23 | P a g e

CHAPTER-4
IMPERFECT TITLE- CONCEPT OF CONTINGENT INTEREST
Section 21 states that where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created in favour of a
person to take effect only on the happening of a specified uncertain event, or if a specified
uncertain event shall not happen, such person thereby acquires a contingent interest in the
property. Such interest becomes a vested interest, in the former case, on the happening of the
event, in the latter, when the happening of the event becomes impossible.
Exception- where, under a transfer of property, a person becomes entitled to an interest therein
upon attaining a particular age, and the transfer also gives to him absolutely the income to arise
from such interest before it reaches that age, or directs the income or so much thereof as may be
necessary to be applied for his benefit, such interest is not contingent. This section also defines
what interest is and when such interest is and when such interest becomes vested. The words “is
created in favour of a person to take effect only on a happening of a specified uncertain event”,
etc., show that an estate or interest is contingent when the vesting is to accurse on an event which
is dubious or uncertain40. Where a right accurse immediately but the enjoyment of the interest is
postponed to a future day, the interest is vested and not contingent. The test, therefore, to see
whether an interest created is vested or contingent is to see whether there is an immediate right
of present or future enjoyment, or whether the right itself is to accrue on the happening of an
uncertain event. For example-
1) A grant provided that on the death of the last surviving widow of the late Raja of Tanjore,
his daughter or failing her next heir, if any, should inherit the property. It was held by
Privy Council that until the death of the last surviving widow, the interest created in
favour of the daughter was only contingent on her surviving the last widow41.
2) X promised A, B, and C, Rs 1,000 each to be paid to them on the occasion of their
marriage. It was held that the gift was contingent upon their marriage taking place. A and
C married before the X’s death, they did not take. B married after the death, and on such
marriage, the gift becomes a vested one42.
40
Dr. Tripathi G.P., The Transfer Of Property Act, Central Law Publications, Allahabad
41
Mahitai v. Sundaram Ayyar, 1936 P.C. 11.
42
Abdul Sarkur v Abubakar Raji Abba, 1930 Bom. 191.
24 | P a g e

3) A transfer was made “to A for life, then, to her adopted son; if she dies without adopting
anybody; then to B and her son”. B predeceased A. It was held that B had only a
contingent interest, the contingency being that A should die without making an
adoption.43
4) A makes gift in favour of his sons with a condition that of any one of them dies leaving
no male issue, his share will be taken by the others, and not by the window or daughter of
the deceased son. In such a case, the gift creates a contingent interest.44
Nature of Contingent Interest
Contingent interest is a transferable interest- A contingent interest; not being a mere possibility is
a well recognized form of property which is capable of being transferred. Such a transfer would
be effectually passed to the transferee, all the interest which the transferor possessed when the
contingency happened and the interest vested in possession. But though a contingent interest can
be made the subject of a valid transfer inter vivos it cannot be made the subject of a forced sale
in attachment proceedings.45
It has been held that a contingent interest is not an existing right and may never ripen into an
existing right, and is not a sufficient ground to an action for declaration of right.46
A contingent interest is a non inheritable interest. On the death of a person having contingent
interest, his legal heirs do not get anything, not even the contingent interest. After the death of
such a person it is only his vested interest that can be inherited. In the case of Rajesh Kanta Roy
v. Smt. Shanti Devi, the Supreme Court observed that, “in case of a contingent interest, one of
the features is that if a person dies before the contingency disappears and before the vesting
occurs, the heirs of such persons do not get the benefit of the gift.
Spec successionis- the chance of an heir- apartment to succeed to a person as heir or other mere
possibility of like a nature is not a “contingent interest” within the meaning of this section.
43
Natwarlal Girdharilal v. Ranchood Bhagwandas, 1920 Bom. 295.
44
Soorejeemoney v. Denobandhu, 9 M.I.A. 123 : Guruswami v. Sirakami, I.L.R. 18 Mad. 347.
45
Fernando v. Gunatilolaka, 1921 P.C. 138.
46
S.C. Deb v. B.K. Deb 35 Cal. 777
25 | P a g e

Death not an uncertain event, but survival at death of another is- the death of a person is not an
uncertain event, but is certain one. An interest created to take effect on the death of another
person, is therefore, not a contingent one, bit is a vested interest. The survival or being alive of a
person at the death of another is, on another hand, an uncertain event and consequently a transfer
to a person if he survives or is alive at the death of another creates only a contingent interest.
Transfer to a person at particular age – A transfer to a person take effect upon his attaining a
particular age gives him only a contingent interest till he attains that age. The question is to be
decided having regard to the intention of the transferee as expressed by the words used by him
and by other circumstances. For example a certain sum of money is transferred to A “ in case he
shall attain the age of 18” and “when he shall attain the age of 18”. Held, in both the cases
contingent interest was given. It is ordinarily a contingent interest given when a transfer is at “a
given age” or “upon attaining” or have the transferee shall attain or “after his attaining creation
age”, is made.
In England, it has been held that a gift to such a class of persons as shall attain a particular age, is
only a contingent gift. In Festing’s case47 where a gift was made to A for life, and then to such of
her children as shall attain the age of 21yeras, it was held that the gift to the children created only
a contingent interest.
In another case of Ma Yait’s were under a settlement, an interest was created in favour of all the
children of the settler to take effect after the youngest child attained that age the other children
too had only a contingent interest in the property.
According to section 23, transfer contingent on happening of a specified uncertain event where,
on a transfer of property, an interest therein is to accrue to a specified person if a specified
uncertain event shall happen, and no time is mentioned for the occurrence for the event, the
interest fails unless such event happens before, or at the same time as, the intermediate of
precedent interest ceases to exist. A person is entitled to create an interest in property in favour
of another to take effect on the happening of an uncertain event. He is also entitled to specify the
time within which such uncertain event is to happen provided the time- limit so fixed does not
47
Festing v. Allen,(1843) 152 ER 1204.
26 | P a g e

offend the rule against perpetuities; person in whose favour the interest is created will take the
interest on the happening of the event within the limit so limited.
But where no time is mentioned by the transferor for the happening of the contingency, the law
fixes the time-limit within which the contingency should happen. This section, accordingly,
provides the contingency must happen before or at the same time as the intermediate or the
precedent happen before or at the same time as the intermediate or at the precedent estate ceases
to exist. The principal on which this time-limit is fived is that the law is in favour of early vesting
and against the indefinite postponement thereof.
This section has no application where the interest is to accrue on the happening of a certain
event, such as, the death of a person. This section expressly refers to a contingent gift to a
‘specified person’. It has no reference to a gift to a contingent class which falls within the
Section 22.48 In Bhupendra’s case,49 the Judicial Committee observed, with reference to Section
111 of the Succession Act,1865 now reproduced in Section 124 of the Indian Succession
Act,1925, which corresponds to Section 23 of this Act:
“Section 111 embodied the rule in case of Edward’s50. The rule of law laid down in that case
has been considerably modified by later English decisions. The Indian Act, however has given it
statutory force. We think that is should be applied only to cases strictly coming within its scope”.
The principal behind this section is that property should never be without any owner, it must
always vest in some person.51
Subsequent Contingent Interest - This section deals with the case of a prior interest followed
by a subsequent contingent interest. The contingent interest cannot vest until the event on which
it is contingent happens. If that event happens sometimes after the prior interest has determined,
there is a gap of interval during which the estate would be in suspense and would be a res nellius.
This section, therefore, enacts that the contingent interest will fail or cannot vest unless the event
happens before or at the same time as the prior interest ceases. For example-
48
Kanai Lal v. Kumar Purendu Nath, 51 C.W.N. 227.
49
Bhupendre Krishna Ghosh v. Amarendra Nath Dey, I.L.R (1915) 48 Cal. 432.
50
Edwards v. Edwards,(1852) 15 Beav. 357.
51
Abiss v. Burney, 17 Ch. D. 211.
27 | P a g e

There is a gift for life to A, and then to B in case he gets called to the Bar. The gift to B unless he
is called to the Bar in the lifetime of A or at the same time as A dies.
A legacy is bequeathed to A when and if he attains the age of 18 and in case of his death to B. A
attains the age of 18. The legacy to B does not take effect.
A legacy is bequeathed to A, and in case of his death to B. If A survives the testator, the legacy
to B does not take into effect.
A legacy is bequeathed to A for life, and after his death to B, and “ in case of B’s death without
children” are to be understood as meaning in case B dies without children during the lifetime of
The rule in this section corresponds to the English real property rule that every contingent
remainder must vest during the continuance of the particular estate which supports it or co-
instant that such particular case determines. The artificial rule of English real property is not to
be imported to India was so observed by the Judicial Committee in Gadahar Mullick v. Official
Trustee of Bengal,52 and Soorjeemoney’s case.53
In Chunni Lal v. Samarth,54 the testator bequeathed his property to his two sons with a proviso
that in case of their dying without male issue his share was to go to the survivor. The gift over to
the surviving son was contingent on the death of the other son without the male issue. The Privy
Council held that the gift over was effective although the other son died two years after the
testator. This was a case to which the Hindu Wills Act did not apply; but in other cases in which
Section111 of the Indian Wills Act, it was held that the prior gift was an absolute and
indefeasible on the death of the testator.55
52
(1940) L.R. 67 I.A. 129.
53
(1862) 9 M.I.A. 123.
54
1919 Bom. 399.
55
Narendranath v. Kamalbasini Dasai, I.L.R. (1896) 23 Cal. 563: Nistarini Debya v. Behari Ll, (1914) 19 C.W.N 52
28 | P a g e

29 | P a g e

CHAPTER- 5
COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS
The distinction between the vested and a contingent interest may seem simple, but in practice it
is not always easy to distinguish one from another. The difficulty arises from the fact that a
vested interest is not necessarily in possession. An interest may be vested and not yet in
possession in any one of the three classes-
1) By a provision postponing enjoyment or,

2) By the intervention of a prior interest or
3) By the provision for accumulation.
Again an interest may be vested although; it is liable to be divested by a condition subsequent.

The difference between a condition precedent and condition subsequent is that when the
condition is precedent, the estate is not vested din the grantee until the condition is performed.
Substantial compliance is enough for vesting. But when the condition is subsequent the estate
vests immediately in the guarantee and remains in till the condition is broken56. The breach has
to be literal or strict only than divesture can be. Conditions subsequent are dealt with in Section
28 and 31. For example, in a case husband transferees his property to his wife for her life and
after her death, the son’s born to them will take the property absolutely. In such a case, the son’s
would acquire the vested reminder in the property.57
A fund is bequeathed to A for life, and after his death to B. On the testators death the legacy to
be becomes vested. Here a prior interest intervenes, but the legacy is vested as the determination
of that prior interest is a certain event.
A fund is bequeathed to A until B attains the age of 18 and then to B. the legacy to B is vested
interest from the time of tester’s death. Here it might be supposed that B’s interest was
contingent on his attaining the age of 18, but it is construed as a gift to A for a term of years with
56
Mulla, The Transfer of Property Act, Tenth Edition, Lexis Butterworths India.
57
Adimmoola v. Pavadai Padayachi, 1958 2 Mad. L.J 47.
30 | P a g e

remainder to be. This is applied to device of the real estate’s known to English lawyers as the
rule in Boraston’s case58. It rests on the principal that the law favors the vesting of the estate.
Distinction between contingent and vested interest
1. Definition
When on transfer of property an interest there in is created in favour of a person-
 Vested interest: a) Without specifying the time when it is to take effect, or

b) Specifying that it is to take effect forthwith, or
c) In the happening of an event which must happen; such interest is vested.
 Contingent interest: a) Is to take effect only on the happening of a specified uncertain
event, or
b) If a specified uncertain event may or may not., such person thereby acquires a
contingent interest in the property.
2. Fulfillment of condition
 Vested interest: It does depend upon the fulfillment of any condition it creates an
immediate right though the enjoyment be postponed to a future date.
 Contingent interest: Is solely dependent upon the fulfillment of the condition, so that if
the condition is not fulfilled the interest would fail
3.Effect of transferee’s death
 Vested interest: Not defeated by the death of transferee before he obtains possession
 Contingent interest: Cannot take effect in the event of transferee’s death before the
fulfillment of the condition
4.Whether transferable or heritable
 Vested interest: a) It is both transferable as well as heritable
b) If transferee of a vested interest dies before actual enjoyment, it passes on to his heirs
58
1887 Co. Rep. 19.
31 | P a g e

 Contingent interest: a) It is transferable but not heritable
b) It is incapable of descending to the heirs
5. Present right of enjoyment
 Vested interest: There is a present immediate right even its enjoyment is postponed
 Contingent: There is no present right, there is a mere promise for giving such right an d
such promise may be nullified by the failure of the condition
In a case of, Sashikantha v. Pramod Chandra59, the Calcutta high court pointed out the distinction
between vested interest and contingent interest. It stated that, “an estate of interest in vested as
distinguished from contingent either when enjoyment of it is presently conferred or when its
enjoyment is postponed, the time of enjoyment will certainly come to pass,. In other words, an
estate or interest is vested when there is immediate right of present enjoyment or a present right
of future enjoyment. An estate or interest is contingent if the right of enjoyment is made to
depend upon some event or condition which may or may not happen. An estate or interest is
contingent when the right of enjoyment is to accrue on an event which is dubious or uncertain.
59
AIR 1932, Cal. 609
32 | P a g e

CONCLUSION
In the case of a transfer of property, a person may acquire a contingent interest as against a real
interest or vested interest in the property. The relevant provisions are contained under Section 21
of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the statutory provisions, where on a transfer of
property an interest is created in favour of a person to take effect only on the happening or not
happening of a specified event, he acquires a contingent interest in the property. For example,
assume there is a stipulation that A's property is to be transferred to C in case A and B die before
the age of 18. In such a case, C has a contingent interest in the property until A and B die, under
the age of 18. An interest is contingent when some contingency is to happen before the person is
qualified to take possession of the property. It is to be noted that if under a transfer of property, a
person becomes entitled to an interest in a property on attaining a particular age, and the
transferor also gives him any income from such an interest before he reaches that age, or directs
the income to be used for his benefit, such an interest is not a contingent interest. In countries
with a sophisticated private property system, documents of title are commonly used for real
estate, motor vehicles, and some types of intangible property. When such documents are used,
they are often part of a registration system whereby ownership of such property can be verified.
In some cases, a title can also serve as a permanent legal record of condemnation of property,
such as in the case of an automobile junk or salvage title. In the case of real estate, the legal
instrument used to transfer title is the deed. A famous rule is that a thief cannot convey good
title, so title searches are routine for purchases of many types of expensive property. In several
counties and municipalities in the US a standard title search is required under the law as a part of
ownership transfer. Ordinarily the subject matter of ownership consists of material objects like
land, chattels etc. the wealth and assets of a person such as interests in the land, debts due to him,
share in a company, patents, copyrights etc. may also be subject matter of ownership. Thus,
intangible rights may also constitute subject matter of ownership. Salmond also supports this
view that besides material objects, right may also be subject matter of ownership though a man is
said ‘not to own, but to have a right’. From this point of view many rights cannot be considered
as subject matter of ownership, like everyone has a right of freedom of speech or right of
reputation but it is never said that he owns these rights, nor can he alienate them.
33 | P a g e

34 | P a g e

Legal Status of Perfect and Imperfect Title in Property: A Historical Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Status of Perfect and Imperfect Title in Property: A Historical Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Status of Perfect and Imperfect Title in Property: A Historical Analysis

5th Year B.A. LLB (Hons)

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala, Punjab, India.

The main rights in the title bundle are usually:

The rights in real property may be separated further, examples including:

 Water rights, including riparian rights and runoff rights

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Title to personal property may accrue in three different ways.

2. By transfer, by act of law.

3. By transfer, by, act of the parties.

Title by original acquisition is acquired,

2. Title by original acquisition is acquired by accession.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

3. It is acquired by intellectual labour- It consists of literary property as the construction of maps

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

But to this general rule there are exceptions.

2. A negotiable instrument endorsed in blank is transferable by any person holding it, so as by

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

According to another classification, vestitive facts operate in pursuance of a human will or

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

1) Right to use a thing.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

1) Ownership ma either is absolute or restricted. That is it may be exclusive or limited. It

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Subject matter of Ownership

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Different kinds of ownership

The right to ownership is generally exclusive, immediate, unconditional and beneficial. It is

1) Corporeal and Incorporeal Ownership

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

4) Legal and Equitable Ownership

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

PERFECT TITLE – CONCEPT OF VESTED INTEREST

According, to section 19 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on a transfer of property, an

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

1. Without specifying the time, when it is to take effect.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Test to determine whether is vested or not

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Hindu law and Muslim law

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

IMPERFECT TITLE- CONCEPT OF CONTINGENT INTEREST

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Nature of Contingent Interest

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

1) By a provision postponing enjoyment or,

Again an interest may be vested although; it is liable to be divested by a condition subsequent.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2149897

Distinction between contingent and vested interest

When on transfer of property an interest there in is created in favour of a person-

 Vested interest: a) Without specifying the time when it is to take effect, or