RULE OF FEEDING GRANT BY ESTOPPEL

The doctrine of equity states that when one person either by his act or omission, or by
declaration, has made another person believe something to be true or persuaded that person to act
upon it, then in no case can he or his representative deny the truth of that thing later in the suit or
in the proceedings. In simple words, estoppel means one cannot contradict, deny or declare to be
false the previous statement which was made by him in the Court.

The law incorporated in S. 43 is based upon common law doctrine of Estoppel by deed and the
equitable principle that if a person promises more than he can perform, then he must fulfil the
promise, when he gets the ability to do so. Feeding the grant by Estoppel acts as an exception to
the general rule contained under S. 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 according to which
unauthorised transfers are void. However, in this case such transfer is considered valid.

Ingredients:

Fraudulent/ Erroneous Representation By The Transferor

The transferor transfers with a mala fide intention to deceive the transferee or under a mistake of
his own right.

As the equitable doctrine of estoppel requires a man to make his representation good, the word
fraudulently/erroneously is the foundation of this section. The words imply that the intention can
be intentionally false or can even be made under a mistaken belief of having the authority to
transfer. It need not be any particular form; it can even be by word of mouth or by a document.

Transferree Acted Upon The Representation

On the erroneous and fraudulent representation made by the transferor, the transferee believes
him and acts upon such representation to complete the transaction. It is a well settled position
that no estoppel can arise where the true possession is known to the transferee. Section 43 does
not apply to gracious transfer or gifts.

Subsequent Acquisition Of Authority By The Transferor

The transferor may acquire the authority by any legal method, for example, by gift, purchase,
inheritance or even by a will. Further, for the application of Section 43, the transfer should be
otherwise be valid, i.e., the transferor must be competent and the object to the transferor should
not be contrary to the public policy.

There Should Be A Subsisting Contract Of Transfer

The option of the transfer can only be exercised in respect of an interest acquired by the
transferee whilst the contract of transfer “still subsists”. If the transferee (purchaser) had
repudiated or cancelled that transaction, or had recovered his purchase money, or if the
transaction were one of mortgage and the mortgage money had been repaid, then the relation of
 the transferor and the transferee has ceased to exist, and no claim in respect of the property can
be made by the latter.

Invalid Transfer

S. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act acts as an exception to S. 7 of the Act. S. 7 declares all
unauthorised transfers void, however, S. 43 acts as an exception of the same which declares the
unauthorised transfer under S. 43 valid. However, the transferee cannot take the help of S. 43 in
the following cases:

 If the transaction is against public policy

 If the transferor is minor
Section 43 is applicable in all other situations except in the two conditions mentioned herein
above.

In the case of Rajapakse v. Fernando, the Privy Council observed that where the transferor has
purported to grant an interest in the property in which he did not have any interest at the time of
transfer but he subsequently acquires interest, the rule of estoppel applies against the transferor,
if he subsequently acquires that interest.

In Ram Bhawan Singh v Jagdish, the court observed that “when a person having a limited
interest in the property transfers a larger interest to the transferee on a representation, and
subsequently acquires the larger interest, the larger interest passes to the transferee at the latter’s
option.

Non-Applicability of S. 43-

Where no grant or interest in immovable property is involved, the doctrine would not apply. The
doctrine also does not apply in cases where the transferor has acquired interest not in the
property which is the subject matter of the transfer, but in some other property.

Conclusion
The doctrine contained under section 43 is based on the equitable principle that if a person
promises more than he can perform, then he must fulfil the promise, when he gets the ability to
do so. The rule in India is the rule extended by equity and it is contained under Section 115 of
the Indian Evidence Act. As the equitable doctrine of estoppel requires a man to make his
representation good, therefore, if the transferor professes to transfer, equity does not permit him
to deny his earlier grant.