DOCTRINE OF FEEDING THE GRANT BY ESTOPPEL

Doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel is in cooperated in section 43 of the Indian transfer of property Act 1882. Transfer of interest in respect of any property is known as creation of grant. In the absent of authority to transfer the transfer’s should not create any grant in respect of property in favor of the transferee, However if the transfer subsequently acquires the right to transfer the property. He should not allow going back from the earlier grant, equity and law doesn’t permit him to deny his earlier statements. Thus he could be stopped/exclude from going back to what he promise or grant earlier.

Therefore he cannot avoid the transfer because of his own earlier grant which he created by misrepresenting his right. He estoppel is back by/ support by his old own earlier grants. The law lead down under this section is known under English law as the doctrine of ‘feeding the grant of estoppel”  this is the rule of equity  which is in cooperated in section 43 of the transfer of Property Act.

 According to the section-

1.      If a person agree/promise to transfer an immovable property frequently/erroneously representing that he has authority to do so,  

2.      The transfer is for consideration

3.      Such transfer acquires the authority subsequently.

I.e. then the transferal may compel the transfer to transfer the property to him

Condition of the application of the section 43

Following are the condition necessary for the applicability of the section 43

1.      If the transferee is unauthorized person

2.      There is fraudulently/erroneously representing by transferor  regarding his right to transfer

3.      The transfer is for consideration

4.      The transfer subsequently acquires a authority for the transfer.

For Example-

A, a Hindu, who has separated from his father B, sells to C there fields, X,Y and Z , representing that A is authorized to transfer the same. Of these fields Z does not belong to A, it having been retained by B on the partition , but B’s dying A as heir obtains Z . C. not having rescinded the contract also of sale, may require A to deliver Z to him.