Transfer of property Act, 1882
Dr. Tanmoy Mukherjee
[Advocate]
IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY BONA FIDE HOLDER UNDER DEFECTIVE TITLES [Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882]-
Tanmoy Mukherjee
[Advocate]
Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act speaks about improvements made by bonafide holders under defective titles.
It runs as follows-
When the transferee of immovable property makes any improvement on the property, believing in good faith that he is absolutely entitled thereto, and he is subsequently evicted therefrom by any person having a better title, the transferee has a right to require the person improvement estimated and paid or secured to the transferee, or to sell his interest in the property to the transferee at the then market value thereof, irrespective of the value of such improvement.
-The amount to be paid or secured in respect of such improvement shall be the estimated value thereof at the time of the eviction.
-When, under the circumstances aforesaid, the transferee has planted or sown on the property crops which are growing when he is evicted therefrom, he is entitled to such crops and to free ingress and egress to gather and carry them.
Section 51 is based on the principle of equitable maxim 'He, who seeks equity, must do equity'. The main object of Section 51 is to protect the interest of the bonafide purchaser.
-When the transferee makes any improvements of immovable property, in good faith that he is absolutely entitled and he is subsequently evicted by any person having better title, the transferee has a right to require the evictor, either to have the value of the improvements estimated; or paid to him or to sell the property to him as if there were no improvements. The value of improvements must be the value at the time of eviction.
Illustration-
A purchased the property of a Mohammedan minor, from his mother who was acting as a de facto guardian, believing in good faith that she had authority to sell. When A was evicted, by the minor, the minor, was entitled to compensation for improvements that he had made.
Conditions-
For applicability of Section 51, the following conditions are to be fulfilled-
(1) The person claiming compensation should be a 'transferee'. So a trespasser is not entitled to the benefit of the section.
(2) He should have believed in good faith that he was absolutely entitled to the property.
(3) He should have made an improvement.
(4) The owner of the property has an option under Section 51 either to sell his interest in the property or pay compensation for the improvement.
Reference Cases-
|
Bhatt vs. Bhatt (AIR 1987 SC 1348)- |
In this case the transferees were found to have been in possession of the properties ever since 1934 and to have been enjoying the income therefrom. They had effected improvements to the property. The Supreme Court felt that the transferees should not be left without any compensation for the improvements effected. Accordingly, on an equitable basis, the Supreme Court directed the plaintiffs to pay the transferees a sum of Rs.30000/- in addition to the amount decreed. On such payment, the transferees were ordered to deliver the properties to the plaintiffs.
|
|
Narayana Rao vs. Basavarayappa (AIR 1956 SC 727) - |
In this case Basavarayappa purchased certain land from a person having good faith and after verification of the title deeds. He registered the said land in his favor. After some years he constructed a building in it. Narayana Rao was the real owner of the property. He sued Basavarayappa for eviction and proved his original title on the land. The Court ordered for the eviction of Basavarayappa. The Court gave an option to Narayana Rao to pay to the defendant the cost of improvements and take possession or to sell the land to the defendant. On 25-7-1945, Narayana Rao the plaintiff elected to pay building. The valuer assessed the value at Rs.14000/-. The plaintiff actually took the possession of the land and house on 1-7-1948. The defendant raised the question that the valuation was made on 25-7-1945, but the property was taken in possession on 1-7-1948, i.e. three years later. He prayed for revaluation of the building as in 1948. The Supreme Court gave judgment in favour of the defendant, and gave the order for revaluation. As per the order of the Supreme Court, revaluation was made and it came to Rs.19000/-. The plaintiff paid Rs.19000/- to the defendant.
|
we believe in a holistic approach to legal education building not just lawyers, but socially conscious leaders of tomorrow.
