A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it. Land afterwards becomes the property of A and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that at the time of sale he had no title. Will he be allowed to prove his want of title?

Question: A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it. Land afterwards becomes the property of A and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that at the time of sale he had no title. Will he be allowed to prove his want of title? [DJS 1980, UPJS 1985]

Find the answer to the mains question of Property Law only on Legal Bites. [A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it. Land afterwards becomes the property of A and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that at the time of sale he had no title. Will he be allowed to prove his want of title?]

Answer

Section 115 of the Evidence Act provides that:

“When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.”

Section 115 lays down that when one person has, either in word or by conduct, intentionally caused a person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief or to alter his position, neither he nor his representative in any suit or proceeding will be allowed to say that the representation was false. Estoppel is a principle of law by which a person is held bound by the representation, made by him or arising out of his conduct.

In the case of Shammim Beg v. Najmunnissa Begum, (2006), a document was executed between the husband and wife an intention that the wife had begotten before the marriage with the husband. The husband had accepted the fact of knowing the child. The wife gave birth to a child on the day of marriage. The husband could not challenge the legitimacy of this child. He is bound by his previous statements.

In the present case at hand, A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it.

The land afterwards becomes the property of A, and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title. A must not be allowed to prove his want of title.

Moreover, Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with the doctrine of "feeding the grant by estoppel." It states that if a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that they have the authority to transfer certain immovable property and then proceeds to transfer it for consideration, such a transfer will, at the option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists.

Therefore, in this scenario, A will not be allowed to prove his want of title to the land when he seeks to set aside the sale. The doctrine of estoppel, as provided in Section 43 of the T.P. Act and Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, prevents A from denying the validity of the sale, given that he intentionally induced B to believe that he had the authority to transfer the land.