THE W.B.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES

LL.B. End Semester Online Examination – Winter Semester 2021-22 (Batch 2020)

Duration: 4 hours Total Marks: 60

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY LAW

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES
A. This is an open-book (ONLINE) examination. You may consult with any materials
you wish. While you are typing, please double space.
B.Answer all the questions.
C. The total score for this examination is SIXTY (60) marks, and each question carries
TEN(10) marks. You will be rewarded for writing answers that are
THOUGHTFUL, CREATIVE, PRECISE AND LEGAL (!)
D. Read the questions carefully, make sure you understand the question, and confine your
responses to an analysis of the questions as written.
E. No clarification can be sought during the examination.

1. (A) Does the law of property focus on the thing? –Justify your answer.
(B) Mr. Banerjee is the owner of 25 acres of land full of timber trees that are at the
various stages of growth. Upon receiving a consideration of Rs. 100000/-, he grants a
right to Mr. Dube for a period of 50 years to enter into the land and cut only „Standing
Timber‟. Discuss the nature of such rights.
(C) Mr. Patel is the owner of house has a right of way upon the land owned by Ms.
Naik so that he may reach the main road easily. Ashoke transfers his right of way to
Amit without transferring the house owned by him. Is the transfer valid? Give reasons
for your answer.
(D) A transfers his property to B, to be given to B on B‟s attaining the age of
Majority. What is the nature of B‟s interest upon the property? What will happen
if B dies before attaining the age of majority? Give reasons for your answer with
the help of relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
[2+2+2+2+2]

2. (A) “If things were not scarce and people not mischievous, selfish and limited in
generosity, we would not need a rule of property regarding things.”
Do you agree? Justify your answer.
(B) By a deed of partition, the property is given to A in life estate with full right of
alienation and if A does not exercise his right of alienation the son and daughter of A

Page 1 of 6
 shall get that property absolutely. What is the nature of the interest created in favour
of the son and daughter in such property? Explain.
(C) A, being financially hard-pressed, mortgaged his property to B for a period of 99
years for a consideration of Rs. 7000/- only. The mortgagee took the possession of
the property and was enjoying the usufruct. The mortgagor sold a portion of his
property and seller sued for the redemption after around 26 years. The motgagee
pleaded that the suit for redemption was premature and was liable to be dismissed.
Is the plea raised by the mortgagee valid? Give reasons for your
answer.
[3+3+4=10]

3. (A)On 24th April 1968 Smt. Kiranmoyee Devi, permanent resident of Salt
Lake,Kolkata, an Indian Citizen executed a registered gift deed whereby she
transferred one-eighth share of the property she inherited from her maternal
grandfather in favour of her son Raju, aged about 16 years, and daughter Somlata,
aged about 4 years equally. 17 years later, on January 18, 1985 Smt. Kiranmoyee
Devi executed another deed and cancelled the first gift deed. And two days later, she
executed a will bequeathing the same property to her daughter.
Being aggrieved Raju filed a suit in which he sought a declaration of his right
to the property according to the 1968 gift deed and cancellation of the deed and the
will executed by his mother in 1985. The trial court, however, dismissed the suit.Raju,
then appealed in the district civil court which ruled in favour of the
appellant.Meanwhile, Smt. Kiranmoyee Devi, the donor, died and the daughter
Somlatamoved the high court. The high court upheld the respondent‟s contention that
the minor child could not be said to have expressed his/her acceptance of the gift as
even after attaining majority he had not taken over possession of the property nor had
started enjoying any right of the property.
Is the court justified in upholding the respondent‟s contention? Discuss
critically with the help of relevant case laws and relevant legal provision/s.
(B) Define the term – “cause the property to be sold”.
[7+3=10 Marks]

4. Sarath owned two properties one of 2 acres and the other of 3 acres in a small village
called Kottayam in Kerala (Hereinafter Property A and Property B respectively). He

Page 2 of 6
had a lot of sentimental value to the property A since his family had been living there
for generations. Sarath was running a successful stationary business on Property B.
The Property B had a large building with ten floors out of which four floors were
occupied by Sarath himself for his business. The other six floors were occupied by a
businessperson called Ramesh as part of a tenancy agreement. Unfortunately, in 2010
the ancestral home in Property A collapsed due to a construction issue by the
contractor. Sarath needing some quick monetary assistance to fix the ancestral home
went to Rohit. Rohit was a close relative who lived in the same village. Sarath
executed a single document whereby he mortgaged his ancestral property for a sum of
Rs. 10,00,000 (in 2010). The value of the property itself was around Rs. 15,00,000.
There was also a clause in the contract that said that the property should be redeemed
within a period of seven years.

The money Sarath took from Rohit was not enough for the repairs so he went
to Ramesh, a business mogul to get more money. For this purpose, Sarath mortgaged
property B to Ramesh for an amount of Rs. 30,00,000 (in 2011). This was a
usufructuary mortgage. Ramesh charged an interest amount of 28% for the amount
that was mortgaged to Sarath. The mortgage deed also contained a clause that said
that the property can only be redeemed after a period of 28 years. It was also
stipulated that while the interest amount can be repaid during the initial period of 28
years, the principal amount can only be repaid after the 28 years. The mortgage deed
also stipulated that upon the redemption of the mortgage, Ramesh would continue to
be a tenant in accordance with the lease agreement effected prior to this mortgage.

In 2020, Sarath filed a suit for redemption of Property A from Rohit. Rohit
argued that the transaction between Sarath and Rohit was actually a sale by a
condition for a repurchase and not a mortgage. Rohit argued that since Sarath missed
the time period in the contract, he is not entitled to repurchase anymore. Sarath argued
that it was indeed a mortgage and he was entitled to redeem the property (Property A).

In 2021, Sarath tried to redeem Property B from Ramesh. Ramesh said that the
contract provided for redemption only after a period of 28 years and that a redemption
was not possible. Subsequently, in 2022, Sarath filed a suit against Ramesh for
redemption of Property B. Sarath argued that the clauses in the mortgage deed amount
to a CLOG on his right to redemption.

Page 3 of 6
 Based on these background facts, answer the following questions (Use relevant bare
act provisions and case laws as applicable):

A. Is the contract between Sarath and Rohit a sale with a condition to repurchase
or a mortgage by conditional sale?
B. Do the clauses in the contract between Sarath and Ramesh amount to a CLOG
on Sarath‟s right to redemption of Property B? Discuss each of the clauses in
the contract. [3+7=10 Marks]

5. Balu owned a piece of property in village of West Bengal. Balu ran into some
financial difficulties and as a result he mortgaged one of his properties to Sreejith.
The interest amount was nominal and the mortgage could only be redeemed after a
period of 5 years from the date of execution of the mortgage. Balu was unable to
redeem the property even after 10 years after the execution of the mortgage.
Subsequently, Sreejith filed a suit for foreclosure and obtained a decree nisi for
foreclosure. This was obtained pursuant to a compromise between the parties where
the understanding was that Balu was unable to redeem the property. Immediately
after this, Balu sold this property to Chandra. Subsequent to this transaction, the
decree for foreclosure was made absolute. After the absolute decree for foreclosure
was obtained, Sreejith filed a suit against Chandra, invoking his rights under S. 52 of
the Transfer of Property Act. Chandra resisted it on two grounds:

First, Chandra claimed that the initial decree nisi was obtained as part of a
compromise and as a result it is inherently collusive and as a result S. 52 would not
apply (Point A).

Second, Chandra contended that even if there was no collusion involved, Chandra
steps into the shoes of the mortgagor and would be entitled to redeem the property.
Chandra further claimed that he should have been enjoined as a party to the dispute
after Balu sold the property to Chandra. Chandra further claims that he is not bound
by the decree of foreclosure and is still entitled to redeem the property (Point B).

Based on the facts described above, answer the following questions (Use relevant bare
act provisions and case laws as applicable):

Page 4 of 6
 a. How are compromise decrees treated under S. 52, would they fall under the
scope of collusive suits? Is there any merit to Chandra‟s contentions in Point
A?

b. Is Chandra bound by the absolute decree of foreclosure or is still entitled to

redeem the property? Answer in reference to Point B. [2+4+4]

6. Mr. Chaturvedi owns a residential house in Salt Lake, Kolkata comprising 15

katha of land covered by lush green grass and fruits bearing trees. The son of Mr
Chaturvedi namely Sashanka completed MBA from IIM, Kolkata in the year
2010, wanted to start a business for which he requires a capital of Rs. 2500000/-.
Mr. Chaturvedi being convinced with the business idea, to facilitate his son
executed a contact to the house property to one Mr. Agarwal for Rs. 2000000/- in
the year 2011 so that the money can be used for his son‟s business. As per the
terms of the contract Mr. Chaturvedi agreed to deliver the possession of the house
property to Mr. Agarwal at the end of June, 2012 on payment of Rs. 1000000/-.
The balance amount as agreed between the parties to be paid by Mr. Agarwal in
two equal instalments within the next year and registration formalities to be
completed by the end of June, 2013. Mr. Agarwal on payment of Rs. 1000000/-
took the possession of the property and stated the repairing work of the existing
building including new construction by clearing some trees standing on the land.
Mr. Chaturvedi went to US in the month of August, 2012 for some personal work
and his return in India was delayed due to his illness while he was in US. Upon
returning from US in the month of January, 2013Sashanka informed his father that
the first instalment of the balance amount has not been paid yet by Mr. Agarwal.
Mr. Chaturvedi asked Mr. Agarwal to pay the entire sum due by first week of
May, 2013 so that the registration formalities could be completed by the end of
June, 2013. In the meantime, Mr. Chaturvedi was compelled to initiate a new deal
with Mr. Basu for re-sale of the property for Rs. 2000000/- with a condition that
Mr. Basu shall pay Rs. 1000000/- in the first week of June, 2013 so that Sashanka
could meet his business commitment. The balance amount to be paid by
December, 2013. Mr. Agarwal failed to pay the amount by the first week of May,
2013. On first week of May, 2013 Mr. Chaturvedi instituted a suit pleading

Page 5 of 6
eviction of Mr. Agarwal from the property. Mr. Agarwal filed a counter
application before the court for specific performance of contract.
Argue the case on behalf of Mr. Chaturvedi (the Plaintiff) after farming
the issue/s based on the fact stated above. [10 Marks]

***

Page 6 of 6