Rights of mesnee mortgagee

Law of Contracts II

A project Report onRights of Mesne Mortgagee

Submitted to:Mrs. Kiran Kori (Faculty: Transfer of Property Act)

Submitted By:Shruti SethiSemester-IV B

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITYRAIPUR (C.G)Submitted on: 4th April 2013

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 3Objectives of study 4Significance 5Research Methodology 6Abbreviation7Introduction 8Chapter 1: Section 94: An Explanation9Chapter 2: Cases of sales in execution of decrees of prior and puisne mortgagees who have not made each other a party. 15Bibliography18

Acknowledgements

I feel highly elated to work on the topic Rights of Mesne Mortgagee. The practical realization of this project has obligated the assistance of many persons. I express my deepest regard and gratitude to my teacher, Mrs. Kiran Kori for her unstinted support. Her consistent supervision, constant inspiration and invaluable guidance have been of immense help in understanding and carrying out the nuances of the project report.I take this opportunity to also thank the University and the Vice Chancellor for providing extensive database resources in the Library and through Internet. Some printing errors might have crept in, which are deeply regretted. I would be grateful to receive comments and suggestions to further improve this project report.

Shruti SethiSemester IV

Objective of studyThe specific objects of this project report are:1. To understand Section 94 of The Transfer of Property Act.2. To analyze its effect on rights of mesne mortgagee.3. To delve into its concept by studing case laws and articles.

Significance

Before the advent of the Britishers, each community in India was governed by its respective customary law in matters relating to transfer of property. With the establishment of the formal litigative system and in absence of any legislation in this area, to begin with, the English judges applied the common law of England and the rules of equity, justice and good conscience with respect to disputes relating to transfer of property. The unsuitability of these provisions to the Indian conditions; the resulting conflict and the need for clarity of rules relating to this important branch of law necessitated the enactment of a legislation. Drafted in 1870, the Transfer of Property Act saw the light of the day in 1882 and provided the basic principles for transfer of both movable and immovable properties. Based primarily on the English law of Real Property, it attempted to mould these principles to suit the Indian conditions; but certain provisions of the Act remained inapplicable to Hindus and Muslims, to start with. In order to put at rest the confusion created by the conflicting decisions and extend the application of the Act in totality to Hindus, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was amended in 1929. However, till date, the provisions of Chapter II of the Act that are inconsistent with the Quranic laws are inapplicable to Muslims. Moreover, a separate enactment titled the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 was passed to deal with transfer of movable property by sale. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 contains the general principles of transfer of property and detailed rules with respect tospecific transfer of immovable property by sale, exchange, mortgage, lease and gift. The present course will cover a study of important terms relevant to transfer of property, meaning of transfer under the Act, general principles relating to transfer of property and definitions and rules relating tospecific transfers of immovable properties by mortgage, lease and gift.

Research Methodology

This project report is based on analytical and descriptive Research Methodology. Secondary and Electronic resources have been largely used to gather information and data about the topic.Books and other reference as guided by Faculty have been primarily helpful in giving this project a firm structure. Websites, dictionaries and articles have also been referred.

Abbreviation

&andSectionSectionsACApex CourtAIRAll India ReporterBom BombayCo.CompanyDelDelhiEd.EditionEg.ExampleER England ReporterEtc.EtceteraGuj GujaratKarnKarnatakaKBKings benchKerKeralaLtd.LimitedPg.PagePvt.PrivateQBDQueens bench DivisionSCSupreme CourtU.P.Uttar Pradeshv.versus

Introduction

The original Section 94 of the Act of 1882 was repealed by the Civil Procedure Code. 1908. This section corresponds with Section 75 of the Act, prior to the amendment of 1929. The old Section 75 ran as follows:75. Rights of mesne mortgagee against prior and subsequent mortgagees.Every second or other subsequent mortgagee has, so far as regards redemption, fore-closure and sale of the mortgaged property, the same rights against the prior mortgagee, or mortgagees, as his mortgagor has against such prior mortgagee, or mortgagees and the same rights against the subsequent mortgagees (if any) as he has against his mortgagor.Section 94 reads: Rights of mesne mortgagee: Where a property is mortgaged for successive debts to successive mortgagees, a mesne mortgagee has the same rights against mortgagees posterior to himself as he has against the mortgagor.In the Act, as amended by Section 47, Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 1929 the old Section 75 is divided between three Sections 91(a), 92 and 94. The first portion of the old Section 95 is covered by Sections 91 and 92. Section 91(a) confers upon the puisne mortgagee a right to redeem a prior mortgage. This section gives a prior mortgagee a right to foreclose a puisne mortgage.The doctrine of redeem up and foreclose down begin akin to the doctrine of subrogation, has been placed after Section 92. A mortgagor can deal with the interest remaining in him and transfer it by sale, mortgage or lease to other persons, but not so as to prejudice the interest of his mortgagee, the result of such a transfer being, that the transferee acquires, as against the first mortgagee, all the rights of the mortgagor.

Chapter 1Section 94: An Explanation

The section enacts, in part, the principle expressed by the phrase redeem up and foreclose down. It is applicable to a case, where a property is mortgaged for successive debts to successive mortgagees, e.g.first, in favour of A,next, in favour of B, andlastly, in favour of C.B as assignee of part of the right of redemption of the mortgagor has same right to redeem A as is possessed by the mortgagor. And C can redeem B or A.[footnoteRef:1] [1: S.M. Lahiri, Transfer of Property Act, 108 (10th ed., 1986). ]

Has the same rights against mortgagees posterior to himself as he has against the mortgagor.--Sections 67 to 73 treat the rights of mortgagees against mortgagors. This section provides that a mesne mortgagee has the same rights against mortgagees, posterior to himself, as he has against the mortgagor. Thus, a prior mortgagee can require the second mortgagee to redeem him, or, in default, to submit to a foreclosure or sale of whatever interest he holds in the property.[footnoteRef:2]In other words, a priormortgagee is entitled to enforce the rights, conferred on him by his mortgage, not only against the mortgagor but also against those who derive their title from or under him, e.g., a subsequent mortgagee, who takes his mortgage subject to the prior mortgage.[footnoteRef:3] [2: Venkataramana v. Gompertz, ILR 31 Mad 425 (428) : 18 Mad LJ 298.] [3: Nand Lal v. Narain Singh, AIR 1929 Lah 207 (208) : 117 IC 666.]

Effect of a decree obtained by the prior mortgagee on the rights of puisne mortgagee.--Where the prior mortgagee institutes a suit for foreclosure or sale on his mortgage, making the puisne mortgagee a party to the suit, the puisne mortgagee may, under the decree, be given the right to redeem the prior mortgagee, and thereafter to take proceedings for foreclosure or sale against the mortgagor, though thedecree may not operate as res judicata between the mortgagor and the puisne mortgagee.[footnoteRef:4]But where the decree does not give this liberty, the puisne mortgagee cannot pay off the mortgagee decree-holder and adopt the decree as his own.[footnoteRef:5]This is so, since the payment satisfies the decree and there is nothing left to execute. But where the decree is in proper form and the puisne mortgagee under it has a right to redeem, which he exercises while the mortgagor fails to pay the decretal debt, the Court can substitute the puisne mortgagee as decree-holder.[footnoteRef:6]But, if the puisne mortgagee does not redeem the prior mortgagee, and the property is allowed to be sold in execution of the decree, the auction-purchaser gets the property free from the encumbrances, and thereafter the puisne mortgagee has only a right to look to the surplus sale-proceeds for the satisfaction of his dues.[footnoteRef:7] [4: Vedavyasa v. Madura Hindu Sabha Nidhi Co., Ltd., AIR 1919 Mad 100 (2) : ILR 42 Mad 90 : 49 IC 36.] [5: Gopi Narain v. Bansidhar, ILR 27 All 326 : 32 IA 23.] [6: Yamunabai v. Maroti, AIR 1933 Nag 163 : 146 IC 514.] [7: Brahmdeo v. Tara Chand, 41 Cal 654 : 21 IC 961 (PC).]

Where puisne mortgagee sold property in pursuance of the decree obtained, an application to set it a side by prior mortgagee was held not maintainable.[footnoteRef:8] [8: Kerala Financial Corpn. v. Syndicate Bank, Calicut, AIR 1999 Ker 213 (FB).]

Effect of omission to implead puisne mortgagee in the suit.--Where the prior mortgagee omits to implead the puisne mortgagee in a suit on his mortgage, the rights of the latter are in no way affected,[footnoteRef:9]though the former obtains a decree and the property is sold in execution thereof. His right under Section 91 to redeem the prior mortgage is not taken away by such a decree for sale,[footnoteRef:10]and he may, even in execution of his own decree, sell the property subject to the first mortgage.[footnoteRef:11]The right of the puisne mortgagee toredeem is not barred, even though his suit to enforce the puisne mortgage is barred by limitation, for a suit for redemption is governed by Article 61, which provides a period of thirty years for redemption under Article 61(a) of the Act of 1963, corresponding to Article 148 of the Acts of 1908 and 1877. [9: Hukam Singh v. Lallanji, ILR 43 All 204 : 61 IC 942 (FB).] [10: AMA Firm v. Marudachalam, AIR 1948 Mad 412 : 61 LW 318 : (1948) 1 Mad LJ 288.] [11: Debendra Narayan v. Ramratan, ILR 30 Cal 599 (FB).]

If a subsequent mortgagee is not made a party to the suit brought by the prior mortgagee to enforce his mortgage, the proceedings there under do not affect his rights.[footnoteRef:12] [12: Umesh Chunder v. Jahoor Fatima, 17 IA 201 : ILR 18 Cal 164.]

Sale in execution of mortgagees decree-Rights of auction-purchaser.--The sale, in execution of a decree passed on a mortgage, vests in the auction-purchaser the rights both of the mortgagee and of the mortgagor as they existed at the date of the mortgage.[footnoteRef:13]But if the mortgagor has ceased to have any title in the right of redemption, and the person, having the mortgagors rights, is not represented in the suit, the decree is, so far as the property is concerned, a nullity.[footnoteRef:14] [13: Lallubhai v. Mundas, ILR 20 Bom 390; Magan Lal v. Shakra Girdhar, ILR 22 Bom 945; Perumal v. Kaveri, ILR 16 Mad 121.] [14: Surendralal v. Ahmad Ali, AIR 1933 Cal 912 : ILR 60 Cal 1193 : 147 IC 808.]

Rights of auction-purchaser, if puisne mortgagee is not party to the decree.--Where the prior mortgagee omits to implead the puisne mortgagee in his suit, the auction-purchaser, though he acquires the rights both of the mortgagee and the mortgagor, yet he does not acquire that of the puisne mortgagee. In such a case, the auction-purchaser, in his capacity as the purchaser of the interest of the mortgagor, can, sue to redeem the puisne mortgagee,[footnoteRef:15]but he himself is liable to be redeemed by the puisne mortgagee,[footnoteRef:16]or by any other person, having an interest in the right of redemption, who has not been made a party to the suit.[footnoteRef:17] [15: Hasan Bhai v. Umaji, ILR 28 Bom 153; Sarvothama v. Raja Row, AIR 1921 Mad 648 : 1921 Mad WN 603.] [16: Dinanath v. Lachmi Narain, ILR 25 All 446; Pandurang v. Sakhar Chand, ILR 31 Bom 112; Goverdhana Doss v. Veerasami, ILR 26 Mad 537.] [17: Ram Prasad v. Bhikari Das, ILR 26 All 404; Venkat Reddy v. Kunjappa, AIR 1924 Mad 650 : ILR 47 Mad 551 : 83 IC 1022; Badar-ud-din v. Karim Baksh, AIR 1931 Lah 438 : 135 IC 200.]

Chapter 2Cases of sales in execution of decrees of prior and puisne mortgagees who have not made each other a party.Such cases raise questions as to(a) the mutual right of the parties, and(b) the right of possession.(a) The respective rights of such auction-purchaser.The subsequent mortgagee is not bound to implead the prior mortgagee in his suit, unless the right of redemption has already been sold in execution of the decree on the prior mortgage, in which case, if the subsequent mortgagee was made a party to the suit on the prior mortgage, the sale in execution of the prior mortgagees decree, passes the entire interest in the property to the auction-purchaser, and the subsequent mortgagee has no remedy against the mortgaged property, but where the subsequent mortgagee was not imp leaded in the suit of the prior mortgagee, the auction-purchaser gets the prior mortgagees right plus the right of redemption of the mortgagor subject to the subsequent mortgage. Therefore, in such a suit, the subsequent mortgagee can sell the right of redemption, but the auction-purchaser has two rights, namely, (1) to redeem the subsequent mortgage, and(2) to set up his rights under the prior mortgage as a shield, if the subsequent mortgagee desires to proceed against the entire interest, in the property.In the latter case, if the prior mortgagee has a proper defence, the subsequent mortgagee can sell the mortgaged property subject to the prior mortgage. And, if the right of redemption is sold in execution of the subsequent mortgagees decree, the auction-purchaser acquires the interest of the mortgagor in the mortgaged property, and the auction-purchaser in execution of the subsequent mortgagees decree is entitled to obtain possession of the mortgaged property until redeemed by the auction-purchaser in execution of the prior mortgage decree.(b) Case where the mortgagor was not entitled to possession.In cases where the mortgagor makes, first, a usufructuary mortgage, then, a simple mortgage in favour of A, and lastly, another simple mortgage in favour of B,and both A and B obtain decrees on their respective mortgages, without impleading each other, and the mortgaged property is sold and purchased by different auction-purchasers, neither of them has a right to obtain possession unless any of them redeems the usufructuary mortgage. In such a case, the auction-purchaser in execution of the decree of B can redeem the interest under the mortgage of A, and the auction-purchaser in execution of the decree of A can redeem the interest under the simple mortgage of B.(c) Case-law on the point.The decisions are not uniform. Many cases proceed on the view that after the sale by one mortgagee nothing is left for the other mortgagee to sell, and the right of possession passes according to priority of sale.[footnoteRef:18]In some cases, the right of possession has been determined according to the priority of the mortgages.[footnoteRef:19] One view is that when the prior mortgagee auction-purchaser sues the puisne mortgagee auction-purchaser for possession and the latter fails to redeem, a decree is to be passed forpossession.[footnoteRef:20] In one case, the High Court of Madras held, that where the puisne mortgagee was not joined in a suit on the prior mortgage, the right of the auction-purchaser to be treated as the owner of the right of redemption was imperfect, and the puisne mortgagee who represents the ultimate right of redemption is entitled to retain possession.[footnoteRef:21] But, in another case, the same Court held, that under such circumstances the prior mortgagee was entitled to use the prior mortgage as a shield, and the puisne mortgagees auction-purchaser is not entitled to dispossess him unless he pays him off.[footnoteRef:22] Yet another view is, that if the prior mortgage is not usufructuary, the prior mortgagees auction-purchaser acquires no right of possession either against the auction-purchaser of a prior mortgagee,[footnoteRef:23] or against an assignee of part of the right of redemption who has, not been joined.[footnoteRef:24] [18: Venkatanarasammah v. Ramiah, ILR 2 Mad 108; Kutti v. Subramania, ILR 32 Mad 485 : 4 IC 1077; Nagendran v. Lakshmi Ammal, AIR 1933 Mad 583 : ILR 56 Mad 846 : 144 IC 833 (FB); Ram Kinkar v. Hareram, AIR 1933 Cal 181 : 145 IC 175; Muhammad Jaman v. Akali Mudiani, AIR 1943 Cal 577 : 47 Cal WN 682 : 210 IC 67.] [19: Gangadhar v. Lakshman, AIR 1930 Bom 221 : 125 IC 905; Har Pershad v. Dalmardan Singh, ILR 32 Cal 891; Afsar Jehan Begum v. Muhammad Amir Ahmad Khan, AIR 1937 Oudh 478 : 171 IC 56.] [20: Bhekdhari v. Radhika Koer, AIR 1934 Pat 648 : ILR 13 Pat 364 : 155 IC 635.] [21: Chinnu v. Venkatasamy, ILR 40 Mad 77 : 34 IC 507.] [22: Chinnaswami v. Darmalinga, AIR 1932 Mad 566 : 139 IC 309.] [23: Madan Lal v. Bhagwan Das, ILR 21 All 235 (FB); Ram Narayan v. Somi, AIR 1923 All 449 : ILR 45 All 189 : 74 IC 277; Lachmi Narain v. Hirdey Narain, AIR 1926 All 480 : 97 IC 4 : 24 All LJ 661; Aghore Nath v. Dev Narain, 11 Cal WN 314.] [24: Hargu Lal v. Govind Lal, ILR 19 All 541 (FB); Kristopada v. Chaitanya Charon, AIR 1923 Cal 274 : ILR 49 Cal 1048 : 69 IC 530.]

It seems, that when an encumbrancer is not made a party to a suit on a prior mortgage, the foreclosure or sale is not altogether void, for it is effectual as against persons interested in the right of redemption who have been made parties. A sale, if held in execution of such a decree, vests the estate, in the purchaser, subject to redemption by the person interested in it who was not made a party to the proceedings. If such auction-purchaser has obtained possession by virtue of the auction-purchase, the remedy of the person interested who was not impleaded is(a) to redeem, or(b) to institute a suit on his own mortgage and bring the right of redemption to sale.In no case, can he maintain an action for ejectment against the auction-purchaser in execution of the decree on the prior mortgage, nor can he have the sale set aside. The auction-sale operates as a transfer of the rights of the prior mortgagee and of the mortgagor to the auction-purchaser.[footnoteRef:25] [25: Bhagaban Chandra v. Tarak Chandra, AIR 1927 Cal 259 : 45 Cal LJ 4 : 100 IC 420.]

The proper view seems to be(1) the auction-purchaser, in execution of a decree obtained on a prior mortgage without impleading the subsequent mortgagee, acquires all the rights of the mortgagor, who was a party, including his right to possession, in cases where both the mortgages are simple, if either no suit by subsequent mortgagee is pending or the purchase in execution of the prior mortgagees decree was earlier in point of time; if the first mortgagee be the earlier purchaser, the rights of the mortgagor to possession will ultimately vest in him;[footnoteRef:26] [26: Ram Sanehi Lal v. Janki Prasad, AIR 1931 All 466 : 134 IC 1 1931 All LJ 729 (FB).]

(2) if the mortgage is not time-barred, the auction-purchaser under the prior mortgage-decree can compel the subsequent mortgagee to redeem him, but if it is time-barred, he must redeem the subsequent mortgage, unless the parties are content with the then state of affairs;27[footnoteRef:27] [27: Id.]

(3) it is the first purchaser who gets the property, that is, the right to the property, and the question of purchase has nothing to do with the priority or posterity of the mortgage in enforcement of which the property is sold;[footnoteRef:28] [28: Ram Sanehi Lal v. Janki Prasad, AIR 1931 All 466 : 134 IC 1 1931 All LJ 729 (FB), per Mukerji, J.]

(4) if the purchaser in execution of the prior mortgagees decree is not in possession and is suing, as plaintiff, the purchaser in execution of the subsequent mortgagees decree, he can enforce his remedy, if limitation on the prior mortgage he has not yet run out; but he cannot recover the mortgage-money, if limitation has run out. If he was the earlier purchaser in point of time, he can redeem the second mortgage and recover possession, even though the prior mortgage isbarred by time, but if he was the later purchaser in point of time, then the suit even for redemption cannot be decreed,[footnoteRef:29] for he does not own the right of redemption and as representative of the prior mortgagee he cannot redeem; [29: Id]

(5) if the purchaser in execution of the second mortgagees decree is suing the purchaser in execution of the prior mortgagees decree, who is the defendant in possession, then, if the purchaser under the second mortgage was the earlier purchaser in point of time, he can redeem the prior mortgage and the purchaser under the prior mortgage cannot compel the purchaser under the second mortgage to submit to redemption by him; if the purchaser under the second mortgage was later in point of time, then he must first redeem the prior mortgage, but the purchaser under the prior mortgage will have the right to redeem the purchaser under the second mortgage next and retain possession of the mortgaged property. (d) In sum.A prior mortgagee has the same rights against the subsequent mortgagee as he has against the mortgagor. A prior mortgagee can foreclose a puisne mortgagee. When a prior mortgagee suing to enforce his mortgage does not make the puisne mortgagee a party to the suit and brings the property to sale, the auction-purchaser acquires the right both of the mortgagee and mortgagor, and as assignee of the mortgagor, he may sue to redeem the puisne mortgagee. Where a prior mortgagee does not implead the puisne mortgagee in his suit on the mortgage, nor does the puisne mortgagee implead the prior mortgagee in his suit, but both obtain decrees for sale of the mortgaged property and the mortgaged property is sold in execution of both the decrees and is purchased by different auction-purchasers, in determining which of the two purchasers is entitled to possessionwhat has to be seen is which of the auction sale is prior to the other.[footnoteRef:30] The priority of the date of sale carries with it, the right to possession of the mortgaged property, and the priority of the mortgagees need not be considered. The right of a prior simple mortgagee cannot be enlarged by his omission to implead the puisne mortgagee and he cannot take advantage of his own omission. As between the prior mortgagee and the puisne mortgagee, while the puisne mortgagee can bring a suit without impleading the prior mortgagee, the prior mortgagee is required to implead the puisne mortgagee as a party to his suit. While the puisne mortgagee has a statutory right to redeem the prior mortgage, the right of the purchaser in a suit by the prior mortgagee is as an assignee of the mortgagor. The auction- purchasers claim, as an assignee of the mortgagor, is by virtue of a sale without notice to the puisne mortgagee as required under law.[footnoteRef:31] If the puisne mortgagee had been made a party, he would have had the option of redeeming the prior mortgage. By not making the puisne mortgagee a party, the right to which the puisne mortgagee was entitled could not be taken away or the right of the purchaser without notice be enhanced. The right of the puisne mortgagee to redeem a prior mortgage cannot be prejudiced bya Court sale at the instance of the prior mortgagee who has failed to implead the puisne mortgagee. Though, in law, the auction-purchaser, in the prior mortgagees sale, as an assignee of the mortgagor, is entitled to redeem the puisne mortgagee, his right, as auction-purchaser, in law or in equity, cannot prevail over the puisne mortgagees right to redeem.[footnoteRef:32] [30: G.P.Tripathi, The transfer of property Act, 209 (17th Ed., Central Law publications).] [31: G.P.Tripathi, The transfer of property Act 201,(17th Ed., Central Law publications).] [32: Shanmugha v. Sivas, AIR 1967 Mad 418 (420) : ILR (1967) 1 Mad 378 : (1967) 2 Mad LJ 233 (237).]

Priority as regards redemption.--Where a prior mortgagee institutes a suit for sale on his mortgage and purchases the right of redemption in execution of his mortgage-decree, he, in his capacity as purchaser of the right of redemption, is entitled to redeem the puisne mortgagee.[footnoteRef:33]Where there is a conflict between the right of the puisne mortgagee to redeem the prior mortgage and the right of the prior mortgagee as a purchaser of the right of redemption to redeem the puisne mortgagee the prior mortgagee has a prior right to redeem the puisne mortgagee.[footnoteRef:34] [33: Hansabhai v. Umaji, ILR 28 Bom 153; Parasuram Singh v. Padohoilal, AIR 1922 All 135 : ILR 44 All462 : 67 IC 533; Sarvothama v. Raja Row Sahib, AIR 1921 Mad 648 : 1921 Mad WN 603.] [34: . Hansabhai v. Umaji, ILR 28 Bom 153; Parasuram Singh v. Padohilal, AIR 1922 All 135 : ILR 44 All 462 : 67 IC 533; Ram Varan v. Bhagwati, AIR 1925 All 804 : ILR 47 All 751 : 89 IC 295; Govindrao v. Rukmanand, AIR 1924 Nag 198 : 75 IC 899.]

In all difficult cases, the rule redeem up and foreclose down should be followed. Thus, the mortgagor who still retains an interest in the right of redemption has a preferential right to redeem a prior mortgage as against the last subsequent mortgagee while the last subsequent mortgagee has a preferential right to redeem a prior mortgage than an intermediate mortgagee, and so on.[footnoteRef:35] [35: Madhuram v. Bhotong, AIR 1925 Cal 59 : 86 IC 193; Sheo Narain v. Ram Nirekhan, 52 IC 512; Sheoratan Koer v. Kamta Prasad, AIR 1932 Pat 270 : ILR 11 Pat 415 : 139 IC 78; Amba Prasad v. Wahidullah, AIR 1922 All 405 : ILR 44 All 708 : 68 IC 961.]

Prior mortgagee is not a necessary party to a suit by puisne mortgagee.A prior mortgagee is not a necessary party to a suit by a puisne mortgagee on his mortgage. This is made plain by Order XXXIV, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Bibliography

Books Referred G.P.Tripathi, The transfer of property Act (17th Ed., Central Law publications). Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Property Law (2006). Poonam Saxena, Property and Easement, Halsbury Laws of India; Vol. 12 (2002). S.M. Lahiri, Transfer of Property Act (10th ed., 1986). Sen Gupta (Rev.), Mitras Transfer of Property Act (18th ed., 2004). Solil Paul (Rev.), Mullas The Transfer of Property Act (9th ed. 1999). Vepa. P. Sarathi (Rev.) G.C.V. Subba Raos Law of Transfer of Property (3rd ed., 2002).

Dictionaries Referred BRYAN AND GARNER, BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1504 (7th Ed. Sweet & Maxwell 2008). P. RAMANATHA AIYER, THE LAW LEXICON (2nd Ed. Wadhwa & Company Nagpur 2002). TRAYNERS LATIN MAXIMS 552 (4th Ed. Universal Law Publishing Co.). WEBSTERS NEW ENCYCLOPEDIC DICTIOANRY (Revised Edition 1995, BD&L Publishers Inc.).

Websites Referred http://dolr.nic.in/Acts&Rules%5CTransferOfPropertyAct%281882%29.htm, referred on 1st April 2013 at 4 pm. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/issues/forum20-transfer-of-property-act-1882.html referred on 1st April 2013 at 4.30 pm. http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/gyanagnihotri-467243-transfer-of-property-act/ referred on 31st March 2013 at 1 pm.

Page | 19