Property Law

Kartar Singh v. Harbans Kaur

(1994) 4 SCC 730

Facts

Harbans Kaur executed a sale deed in favour of Kartar Singh.
She transferred:
her own share in the land; and
the share belonging to her minor son, Kulwant Singh.
The deed expressly showed that she was acting as guardian of the minor regarding his share.
She had not obtained the court’s permission required for alienating the minor’s immovable property.
After attaining majority, Kulwant Singh successfully challenged the sale of his share.
That portion of the transaction was declared ineffective.
Kulwant Singh later died and Harbans Kaur inherited an interest in his property.
Kartar Singh then invoked Section 43, arguing that the interest she subsequently inherited should pass to him under the earlier sale deed.

Whether Section 43 could operate when the purchaser knew that the seller was acting only as guardian of a minor.
Whether the guardian’s later-acquired interest could feed the earlier invalid sale.
Whether the purchaser had been misled by any representation of authority.

Section 43 requires a fraudulent or erroneous representation by the transferor that they are authorised to transfer the property.
The transferee must:
act on that representation;
pay consideration; and
lack knowledge of the true defect.
A purchaser who has notice of limited authority must make reasonable inquiries.
Section 43 does not protect a purchaser who knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the transferor lacked authority.
The underlying transaction must also remain capable of enforcement when the later interest is acquired.

The sale deed did not represent that Harbans Kaur personally owned the whole property.
It clearly disclosed that:
part belonged to her;
part belonged to her minor son; and
she purported to transfer the minor’s part as guardian.
The purchaser therefore had direct notice that her power over the minor’s share was limited by guardianship law.
A reasonable purchaser was expected to verify whether the necessary court permission had been obtained.
Kartar Singh failed to make that inquiry.
He could not later claim that he had been deceived into believing that Harbans Kaur had unrestricted authority.
This distinguished the case from Jumma Masjid.
In Jumma Masjid, the sellers positively represented that they had existing ownership, and the purchaser relied on that representation.
Here, the document itself disclosed the true ownership structure and placed the purchaser on inquiry.
The Court also noted that the transaction concerning the minor’s share was legally ineffective.
Section 43 is an equitable protection for an innocent transferee, not a device to cure a transaction entered into despite known statutory limitations.
Harbans Kaur’s later inheritance from her son therefore could not automatically be captured by the earlier sale.
Her transfer of her own existing share remained valid, but the purchaser could not enlarge it by relying on Section 43.

Section 43 did not apply.
Kartar Singh knew from the sale deed that Harbans Kaur was acting as guardian and was bound to inquire into her authority.
Since he was not misled by a representation of unrestricted ownership, he could not claim the later-acquired interest.
The appeal seeking enforcement against the inherited share was dismissed.