Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The learned Judge of this Court , on the basis of these findings, came to the conclusion that in spite of them the suit should fail as regards this extra share. The basis of this decision is that the word "transferee" in the proviso to Section 43 is wide enough to cover an auction-purchaser and that therefore the present defendants who purchased the property for consideration and in good faith and without notice of this equitable charge are protected. He further expressed the opinion that the defendants, having purchased the supposed interests of the benamidars who were the ostensible owners of the property with the implied consent of Inayat Khan, are entitled to protection on account of Inayat Khan's conduct. In appeal it is urged before us that neither Section 41 nor the proviso to Section 43 can apply to an auction--purchaser.

5. The defendants are auction-purchasers of the right, title and interest of Inayat Khan's sons and their wives. They are not people who have taken a voluntary transfer from the ostensible owners. Indeed they made the purchase without the consent, and it may well be, against the will of their judgment-debtors. Inayat Khan no doubt had put his sons and their wives in possession and was holding them out to be ostensible owers to the world. But the defendants have not acquired rights by virtue of any act directly done by these ostensible owners, but have acquired the property under an involuntary or compulsory sale and therefore prima facie against the will or at any rate without the consent of these ostensible owners.

6. Section 41, Transfer of Property Act, applies to a case where the true owner allows his benamidar to remain in possession of the property as an ostensible owner and to deal with it as full owner. Where such ostensible owner "transfers" property to a person who takes it in good faith after having taken reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer, the transaction binds the true owner. But obviously the transfer spoken of ins. 41 must be a voluntary transfer which is affected by an act of the ostensible owner. On this point there is a direct authority of this Court , namely, Mangat Lal v. Ghasi Khan 118 Ind. Cas. 718; A.I.R. 1929 All.800; Ind. Rul.(1929) All.926, which does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned Judge of this Court . The learned Judges were of opinion that in view of the language of Section 41 it would not be applicable to auction-purchasers.