Define Transfer of Property and Enumerate Property Which Cannot
Define Transfer of Property and Enumerate Property Which Cannot
o Public policy;
o The right is personal to one exercising it;
o The right is intrinsically connected to larger property or right which is not
being transferred.
o Spes Successionis: This would mean chance of a person obtaining a right in the
future, clause (a) of Section 6 mentions the following possibilities:
The policy behind this is that a person can only transfer what he
owns.
Example: Consider a family where Father Ram owns a property and his son Shyam is the heir
apparent. As long as Ram is alive, he retains full ownership of the property. Shyam cannot
sell or transfer the property without Ram’s consent. If Ram dies intestate (without a will),
Shyam may inherit the property. However, if Shyam attempts to transfer his future
inheritance while Ram is still alive, such a transfer would be void ab initio (void from the
outset). This provision was upheld in the case of Official Assignee, Madras v. Sampath Naidu,
where the court observed that a mortgage executed by an heir apparent is void even if he
subsequently acquires the property as an heir.
Example: If A has the right of way over B’s land to access his
own property, this is an easement. Similarly, in Ganesh
Prakash v. Khandu Baksh, it was held that the right to dry
clothes over the roofs of shops constitutes an easement.
Importantly, an easement cannot be transferred apart from the
dominant heritage to which it is attached, as established
in Sital v. Delanney.
The need for adding this clause was that even though transfer of right to
maintenance was prohibited by virtue of clause (d), some Courts held that if
the amount of maintenance were fixed by decree or agreement it could be
transferred.
This clause was therefore introduced to protect this right created for the
personal benefit of the qualified owner.
However, if the decree for damages has been passed it can be transferred as
it is no longer a mere right to sue.
A right to recover mesne profits is a mere right to sue and is not transferable.
The Privy Council in the case of Manmatha Nath Mullick v. Hedait Ali
(1931) laid down the difference between actionable claim and a mere right
to sue.
Example: In Sethupathi v. Chidambaram, the court held that a bare right to sue,
where the transferee has no interest other than the right to sue, is non-transferable.
For instance, if A contracts to buy goods from B and fails to take delivery, causing B a
loss, B cannot transfer the right to recover damages to C. Such a transfer would be
invalid.
Conclusion
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, particularly Section 6, provides a comprehensive framework for
understanding which properties can be transferred and which cannot. By clearly defining transferable
and non-transferable properties, the Act ensures legal clarity, protects individual rights and maintains
the integrity of property transactions.
Under TPA, the general rule as enunciated by Section 6 is that property may be transferred. However,
there are certain exceptions based on principles of public policy. These exceptions are provided from
Clause (a) to Clause (i) of Section 6 of TPA.