INDEX

Sr Page
Contents
no no.
A. A study on the doctrine of Lis pendens 1-6
Introduction 1
Emergence and basis of Lis pendens 1
Essential conditions for the doctrine of Lis pendens 2
Exceptions to the doctrine of Lis pendens 4
Case laws 4
Conclusion 6
B. Comparative study of vested interest and contingent interest 7-
Introduction 7
Vested interest 7
Legal provisions relating to vested interest other than transfer of property
8
act
Important aspects 9
Illustrations 10
Characteristics of vested interest 10
Case laws 11
Contingent interest 11
Nature of contingent interest 12
Difference between contingent interest and spes-successionis 13
Important aspects 14
Illustrations 14
Characteristics of contingent interest 14
Case laws 15
Distinction between contingent and vested interest 15
Case law 16
Conclusion 17
C. Bibliography & References 18
 A STUDY ON THE DOCTRINE OF LIS PENDENS

INTRODUCTION

The branch of ‘Law of Property’ has changed drastically since the advent of the ‘Transfer of
Property Act, 1882’. Majority of the sections codified under the said act grounds on equitable
principles to establish the right of any owner of a property to transfer or dispose of the
immovable property with ease.

However, the “Transfer of Property pending suit relating thereto” enlisted under Section 52 of
the act was worded in order to restrict such right of alienation of immovable properties in
instances where a dispute regards to the rights of the said property is pending in a competent
court of law.

The nature of this section is not ‘generalized’ but rather it only binds the specific parties
involved. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 finds its roots in the age-old doctrine
of ‘Lis Pendens’ which literally translates to ‘pending litigation’.

This doctrine is based on the common law principle of “utlite pendente nihil innovetur” which
means ‘during the pendency of litigation, nothing new interest should be introduced or created
in respect of the property’.

EMERGENCE AND BASIS OF LIS PENDENS

Lis- pendens means a pending suit and the doctrine of Lis-pendens has been defined as the
jurisdiction, power, or control which a Court acquires over property involved in a suit pending
the continuance of the action, and until final judgment therein.

Furthermore, through judicial pronouncements, two theories have emerged.

1. ‘Theory of Notice’

2. ‘Theory of Necessity’

These theories have been formulated by jurists in order to construe the basis of this doctrine.
The former theory words that pending litigation will serve as a constructive notice of dispute
being pending on the said immovable property to everyone.

Thus, it could be considered as a warning to third parties against buying the said property.

1
Alternatively, the latter theory suggests that for fair adjudication, it is imperative to bound the
litigants from alienating the property during the pending suit in order to ensure that there is no
interference with the execution of the court’s decree.

This clarification has been properly proffered in the case of Bellamy vs. Sabine where it was
proffered as-

“If parties to a dispute aren’t prevented from transferring any of the property, then it would be
impossible for any action/suit to be successfully terminated. Thus, the foundation for this
doctrine doesn’t rest upon constructive notice; it rests entirely upon necessity, where the party
to litigation shouldn’t alienate the property so as to affect the opponent.”

Based on expediency and the necessity for final adjudication, this view has been consolidated
in the case of Faiyaz Husain Khan vs. Munshi Prag Narain.

In order to further understand why the notion of notice and the ‘Theory of Necessity’ has been
so widely accepted and credited is because of public policy; to protect the plaintiff’s rights.

In deprivation of this, the plaintiff would be constantly vanquished by defendants who will
keep transferring the title of the immovable property prior to the judgment.

The plaintiff, if he wins, will be stuck in a constant circle of filing different suits in order to
gain possession of the said property. This in turn would hamper the theory of res-judicata since
Lis Pendens is often considered as an extension of the same.

ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR THE DOCTRINE OF LIS PENDENS

This doctrine does not apply mechanically as soon as there is a suit pending concerning
immovable property, but rather there are certain essential conditions that need to be fulfilled.

Hon’ble Justice A. N. Sen in the matter of Dev Raj Dogra and Ors. Vs. Gyan Chand Jain
and Ors. had listed down three essential conditions for the implementation of the doctrine-

→ A suit or a proceeding in which any right to immovable property must directly and
specifically in question must be pending;

→ The suit or the proceeding shall not be a collusive one;

→ Such property during the pendency of such a suit or proceeding cannot be transferred
or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the right of
any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be passed therein except
under the authority of Court.
2
In other words, any transfer of such property or any dealing with such property during the
pendency of the suit is prohibited except under the authority of the Court, if such transfer or
otherwise dealing with the property by any party to the suit or proceeding affects the right of
any other party to the suit or proceeding under any order or decree which may be passed in the
said suit or proceeding.

Alternatively, from the language of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the
following conditions can be made out-

 There is a pendency of a suit or proceeding.

 The suit or proceeding must be pending in a Court of competent jurisdiction

 A right to immovable property is directly and specifically involved in the suit.

 The suit or proceeding must be collusive.

 The property in dispute must be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to
suit.

 The transfer must affect the rights of the other party to the litigation.

Therefore, in order for the application of the doctrine of Lis Pendens the aforementioned
criteria need to be met, and thus during the pendency of a bona fide suit, in a court of competent
jurisdiction, where the rights over immovable property are directly and substantially is
involved, such property cannot be transferred without the leave of the court, and if transferred
without such leave, the purchaser of such property would be bound by the decree of the court.
However, while analyzing the conditions certain controversies have arisen.

For example, there was much debate surrounding the ‘competency of the court’ as to if the
competency expands to include arbitral proceedings.

This was later clarified in the case of Sardara Singh vs Mohan Lal Major and subsequently
through a string of other cases wherein it was held that the doctrine is extended to Arbitration
proceedings as these Arbitral Tribunal have legal effects since it is constituted by competent
Court of law under provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 and is binding on the
parties.

Another issue arose with the ‘type of transfer’, as to whether it includes involuntary transfers.
Involuntary transfer means to transfer/sale made by the court.

3
The plain reading of the doctrine states that it applies only to ‘private’ transfers made by the
parties’ opponents to the suit; however, the Privy Councils have settled a well-established law
on this point that principles of this doctrine are applicable to court sales and to execution sale
purchasers and also due to non-payment of government revenue sale being made.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF LIS PENDENS

While the doctrine applies when the aforementioned conditions are met, however, there exist
certain exceptions wherein the courts may grant permission to any of the parties to dispose of
the property while the suit is pending but subjected to the conditions that it may impose.

In such circumstances, the court, carefully scrutinizes the facts and circumstances of the matter,
in order to ensure that the rights of either party are not jeopardized by the permitted transfer.

Exceptions of Lis Pendens are as follows:

a. The section does not affect the enforcement of a judgment or decree or order in a suit
or proceeding in which such transfer is not contested.
b. The doctrine does not apply to suit where property is unidentifiable.
c. The doctrine does not apply to collusive suits.

CASE LAWS

1. Bellamy v. Sabine (1857):

This doctrine was originated in this case where Justice Turner observed that “This is a doctrine
common to law and equity courts, which I apprehend, on the grounds that, if alienation
pendente lite was allowed to prevail, it would simply not be possible for any action or suit to
be resolved successfully.

In any case, the plaintiff will be responsible for the defendant who alienated the property before
the judgment or the decree and must be obliged, according to the same course of action, to
initiate these proceedings de novo”.

2. Rajendra Singh and Ors. V. Santa Singh and Ors (1973):

The Supreme Court cited that “Lis pendens literally means a pending suit, and the doctrine of
Lis pendens has been defined as the jurisdiction, power, or control which a court acquires over
property involved in a suit pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment
therein”.

4
 3. Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj and Ors. (2010):

The suit property was exempted by SC from application of doctrine of Lis pendens on
furnishing security of Rs. 3,00,000 by the defendants.

4. Chander Bhan (D) Through Lr. Sher Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors.

Recently, the Supreme Court in this case held that the non-applicability of the provisions of
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) wouldn’t bar the applicability of
doctrine of Lis-pendens.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

→ In this case the appellant and respondent no. 3 entered an agreement to sell for a total
consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs, where Rs. 2.50 lakhs were paid at the time of the agreement
and the remaining was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed.

→ The appellant, having received the knowledge that respondent no. 3 was likely to
alienate the suit property, files a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent
no.3.

→ The appellant then files a suit for specific performance before the Additional Civil
Judge, Senior Division, i.e. respondent No.3 did not come forward even on the last day
to execute the sale deed.

→ The Trial Court, nevertheless, decreed the suit of the appellant with costs and directed
respondent no. 3 to accept balance sale consideration and execute the agreement to sell.

→ Thereafter, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

→ The appellant filed a second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

→ The impugned Judgement of the High Court has reversed the concurrent findings of the
trial court and the first appellate court and has consequently dismissed the suit of
specific performance filed by the appellant, although a partial relief was granted to the
appellant by return of the earnest money to the appellant, with interest.

→ Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

→ Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the High Court.

5
OBSERVATION BY THE COURT

The bench comprising of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PB Varale observed that there can be
no doubt that even if Section 52 of TPA is not applicable in its strict sense in the present case
then too the doctrine of lis-pendens, which are based on justice, equity, and good conscience,
would certainly be applicable.

The Court even referred to the judgment given in the case of Shivshankara and Another v.
H.P. Vedavyasa (2023).

In this case, the Supreme Court held that it is a well- nigh settled position that wherever the
Transfer of Property Act is not applicable, such principle in the said provision of the said Act,
which is based on justice, equity and good conscience is applicable in a given similar
circumstance, like Court sale etc.

CONCLUSION

After analyzing the various aspects related to section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,
one can deduce that in order to attract the doctrine of Lis Pendens, the suit must be regarding
an immovable property that directly and substantially involves questions about its rights; this
ensures that the doctrine can only be attracted when such conditions are met and cannot be
misused by anyone by merely mentioning an immovable property in the plaint.

Secondly, the doctrine in its pith and substance prohibits transfer during the pendency of the
suit. This protects the plaintiff to the extent that if any sale or transfer of title is made during
the pendency of the suit, then any such action will be invalidated and the purchaser shall
become bound by the result of the litigation.

So, in a way, the interest which would have otherwise been of a vested nature to the purchaser
becomes a contingent interest when a transfer is made pendente lite.

6
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF VESTED INTEREST AND CONTINGENT INTEREST

INTRODUCTION

Property transfer and exchange is very common in the day-to-day life of an individual. Property
may be defined as any physical or virtual entity owned by an individual or a group of
individuals who hold the ownership and rights on the property.

Property can be transferred or sold from one person to another by various means according to
the statutes in India. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with the transfer of properties
between one person to another.

According to The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the parties for the contract of transfer of
property are Transferor and Transferee.

The transferor is someone who transfers his property to another while the transferee is a person
who is transferred. Provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are applicable in the transfer of
property.

For the transfer of a property two major interests are taken into consideration, namely, Vested
Interest and Contingent Interest.

Vested Interest is mentioned in Section 19 and Contingent Interest is mentioned in Section 21

of the Transfer of Property Act, 1888.

VESTED INTEREST

Vested interest is defined under section19 of transfer of property act.

When an interest is vested the transferee’s title is already perfect. It must be noted that an
interest may be vested even though it does not give a right to immediate possession .

Thus, on a transfer to A for title with remainder to B.B's interest is vested because there is
nothing but A's prior interest to stand between him and the actual enjoyment of the property
transferred.

Vesting means granting a person an immediate right to present or future enjoyment of property.

In other words, a vested rights to a property cannot be taken away by any third party even if
the person does not have the immediate possession of the property.

7
When the right, to the present or future possession of a legal estate can be transferred to any
other party, it is termed a vested interest.

A vested interest is not defeated by the death of the transferee before he obtains possession.

LEGAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO VESTED INTEREST OTHER THAN

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT

Section 119 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 : Date of vesting of legacy when payment or
possession postponed.-

Where by the terms of a bequest the legatee is not entitled to immediate possession of the thing
bequeathed, a right to receive it at the proper time shall, unless a contrary intention appears by
the will, become vested in the legatee on the testator's death, and shall pass to the legatee's
representatives if he dies before that time and without having received the legacy, and in such
cases the legacy is from the testator's death said to be vested in interest.

Explanation.-

An intention that a legacy to any person shall not become vested in interest in him is not to be
inferred merely from a provision whereby the payment or possession of the thing bequeathed
is postponed, or whereby a prior interest therein is bequeathed to some other person, or whereby
the income arising from the fund bequeathed is directed to be accumulated until the time of
payment arrives, or from a provision that, if a particular event shall happen, the legacy shall go
over to another person.

EXAMPLE-

A bequeathed to B 100 rupees, to be paid to him at the death of C. On A's death the legacy
become vested in interest in b, and if he dies before C, his representative are entitled to the
legacy.

A person attains a vested interest when it is created in his favour

(i) Without specifying the time when it take effect, or

(ii) In terms specifying that it is to take effect forthwith, or

(iii) In terms specifying that it is to effect on the happening of an event which is must
happen.

8
Such interest becomes a vested interest under the following circumstances:
✓ In case where on a transfer of property, an interest is created in favour of a person to
take effect only on the happening of a specified uncertain event, then on the happening
of the event.

✓ In case where on a transfer of property an interest is created in favour of a person to

take effect only on the not happening of a specified uncertain event, then when the
happening of the event becomes impossible. The not happening of the event should
become absolutely certain, beyond doubt. Such an interest becomes a vested interest in
the transferee

EXAMPLE:

Suppose O is the owner of Black acre. Consider what happens when O transfers the property
“to A for life, then to B." Person A acquires possession of Black acre.

Person B does not receive any right to possess Black acre immediately; however, once person
A dies, possession will fall to person B (or his estate, if he died before person A).

Person B has a future interest in the property. In this example, the event triggering the transfer
is person A's death.

Because they convey ownership rights, future interests can usually be sold, gifted, willed, or
otherwise disposed of by the beneficiary (but see vesting below).

Because the rights vest in the future, any such disposition will occur before the beneficiary
actually takes possession of the property.

This type of interest is known as vested interest.

IMPORTANT ASPECTS

The basic definition of “interest must be vested” means that interest ought to be made in favor
of an individual in a manner whereby time or a condition of a specific event’s occurrence is not
stipulated. An individual must affirm transferring the said property so that the interest can be
created.

When interest is conferred upon an individual, he/she doesn’t instantly gain possession of the
property to enjoy it.

9
The interest is conferred upon someone immediately post the initiation of the transfer and
nothing can hinder it once it is initiated.

The transferor may stipulate a given time for when the interest shall be vested in the individual
receiving the property.

In the case of the transferee passing away before gaining the property’s possession, the interest
conferred upon him/her will then be vested in his/her legitimate heirs who will gain the
possession of the same as and when the said condition is satisfied.

ILLUSTRATIONS

 A, B’s father, agrees to transfer a piece of property in favor of B after he is deceased.

The interest in the property in favor of B depends on the condition that is the demise of
A, which is bound to occur.

Therefore, upon A’s demise, B will gain a vested interest in the said property.

 C pledges to transfer his property to D once she turns 25 years old. D will gain a vested
interest in C’s property till she completes 25 years of age after which she will gain the
property’s possession.

If D dies at a time when she is 24 years old, then the interest vested in her will go onto
her legitimate heirs and they shall then be entitled to that property in the stipulated
duration of years.

 A minor with a guardian is entitled to vested interest solely after he/she turns 18 years
old. So, when E agrees to transfer property to F who is a minor, he can tell F’s guardian
G to bestow upon her the property at whatever age E wishes to set the threshold but F
gains the vested interest only once she becomes a major i.e., 18 years old.

CHARACTERISTICS OF VESTED INTEREST

→ Vested interest is not based on an unsure occurrence.

→ It is dependent on a particular event that is bound to take place.

→ It constructs an instant right, though the right to enjoyment is set for a later date.

→ Vested interest is not eradicated by the occurrence of the individual’s demise.

→ On the occurrence of such death, the interest passes on to the deceased transferee’s heir.

→ Vested interest is a right that is transferable in nature and also one that is heritable.
10
 CASE LAWS

In the case of Lachman v. Baldeo (1919) 21 OC 312, an individual transferred a deed of gift
in another person’s favor but stated that the transferee shall not gain the property’s possession
till the transferor himself passes away. The Transferee shall bear a vested interest even though
his right to enjoyment is delayed to a later date.

In Sunder Bibi v. Rajendra AIR 1925 All 389, the court ruled that K would own the property
till his demise, after which the property will pass onto L. The interest that L would gain would
be that of a vested one because K’s death is the stipulated event bound to happen.

CONTINGENT INTEREST
Section 21 of Transfer of Property act defines-
"Contingent Interest - Where on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created in favour
of a person to take effect only on the happening of a specified uncertain event, or if a specified
uncertain event, or if a specified uncertain event shall not happen, such person thereby acquires
a contingent interest in the property.

Such interest becomes a vested interest, in the former case, on the happening of the event, in
the latter, when the happening of the event becomes impossible"

There are exceptions to the same which are as follows:-

"Exception - Where, under a transfer of property a person becomes entitled to an interest,

wherein upon attaining a particular age and the transferor also gives to him absolutely the
income to arise from such interest before he reaches that age, or directs the income or so much
thereof as many be necessary to be applied for his benefit, such interest is not contingent"

ILLUSTRATION :

X' bequeathed his property i.e. estate to 'Y' until he shall marry to 'Z'. 'Y's interest in bequeath
is contingent because it depends upon a condition precedent i.e. a marriage of 'Y 'with 'Z'.

An event has no proprietary interest in the estate and cannot alienate it.

MEANING OF THE SECTION-

This section can be broken down as when a transfer of property is to be made only on the
happening of a specific uncertain event the person to whom the property is transferred is said
to have a contingent interest in the property.

11
Key feature being happening of a specific uncertain event. The specified uncertain event may
be one which depends upon the will of the intended transferee, e.g. Execution of a deed, or
payment of a sum of a money. The performance of such condition is subject to s.26.

However, section 21 is not read alone but with other sections of the other statutes.
"Transfer Contingent on happening of specified uncertain events –
Where on a transfer of property, an interest therein is, to accrue to a specified person, if a
specified uncertain event shall happen and no time is mentioned for the occurrence of that
event, the interest fails unless such event happens before all at the same time as the intermediate
or precedent interest, seizes to exist.

The aforementioned section i.e. section 23, enacts that contingent interest will fail to vest unless
the event in question happen at the same time or before as the prior interest seizes, i.e. an
interest out of a property will arise after the happening of the specific uncertain event or else it
is not a contingent interest.

The rule enacted in the aforementioned section is based on the principle that no property can
remain without an owner even for a moment.

EXAMPLE-
Thus, if there is a gift for life to A and then to B, in case B gets called to the Bar, the gift to B
fails unless he is called to the bar in the lifetime of A, or at the same time as A dies.

The provisions also comply with other provisions of other statutes such as the Indian
Succession Act, the section corresponds to section 124 of the aforementioned act, according to
which if no period is specified a contingent bequest fails unless the event on which it is
contingent happens before the period of distribution.

NATURE OF CONTINGENT INTEREST

a. Future possible interest-This implies that contingent interest is a possible interest which
could give rise to a future right in respect of property transfer. It is neither present right
nor a certain right. Since happening or not happening of the event is uncertain, the
interest dependent on it is uncertain.

b. Not heritable- contingent interest is not heritable in nature i.e. after the death of the
person having contingent interest the interest is not passed to the heir.

12
 c. Transferable interest- contingent interest is transfer able but the interest of the transferee
is imperfect since the interest of the transferor is also uncertain and imperfect interest.

d. Sale of inchoate contingent interest prior to vesting. – A father and his son purported
to transfer certain property as owners when in fact the father had only life interest in it
and the son had an inchoate contingent interest which had not become vested, i.e. an
undivided share in the family property which was to vest on his father's death. The sale
was held to be in efficacious till partitioning of the property.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONTINGENT INTEREST AND SPES-

SUCCESSIONIS

 Both of them are future possible interests and both have a chance or possibility to
become certain.
 The main difference is that the degree of possibility is lesser in contingent interest than
in spes-successionis.
 In case of contingent interest two possibilities are there i.e. either it will happen or it
will not happen (condition to which transfer is contingent) but in case of spes-
successionis there are a number of possibilities and factors like:
▪ the heir apparent survives the propositus (deceased person),even if he survives,
the propositus during his life has already transferred the property or, he has
made a will of that property,
 So, spes-successionis has been regarded as a naked or mere future possible interest.
 Hence, under Section 6 (a) of the transfer of property Act, spes-successionis is a non-
transferable interest.
 Contingent interest is not 'mere' possible future interest; it is simply uncertain.
 Therefore, law has allowed the transfer of such interest.
 Subject to contingency a contingent interest is a transferable interest.

The same was iterated and clarified by the Privy Council in Ma Yait v. Official Assignee “the
contingent interest which the children took was something quite different from a mere
possibility of a like nature of an heir- apparent succeeding to the estate, or the chance of a
relation obtaining a legacy, and also something quite different from a mere right to sue.

It is a well ascertained form of property it certainly has been transferred in this country for
generations-in respect of which it is quite possible to raise money and disposed of it in any way
the beneficiary chooses."
13
 IMPORTANT ASPECTS

In a transfer, if the condition is that the transfer will effectuate solely once the condition is
fulfilled, till that time the interest is deemed as contingent.

A bequest to any family member such as wife, son, or daughter may be a contingent interest if
the condition so specifies.

When an individual who expects to take on the rights of a property’s ownership, and he/she till
the occurrence of the event, receive any kind of wage arising from that property then such an
interest cannot be considered contingent.

ILLUSTRATIONS

 M agrees to transfer her house in N’s favor provided that N marries her son ‘O’.
Thus, the transfer of property in N’s favor is dependent on the condition of her marriage
to M’s son ‘O’. N may or may not marry ‘O’.
But if she does, then the interest in M’s house transfers to N immediately as the
condition has been satisfied.
 P agrees to transfer the house to Q provided she gets 95% in her exams.
The occurrence or non-occurrence of this condition is dubious and hence, Q acquires a
contingent interest in the house.
She will only receive the house if she secures 95%.
 R agrees to transfer property to S based on the condition that S ought to build a shed in
her property.
Thus, S shall secure contingent interest in the property until the condition is fulfilled.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTINGENT INTEREST

→ Interest in a transferred property shall be subjected to an uncertain condition i.e., it may

or may not occur.
Only when such a condition is satisfied, will the contingent interest be conferred upon
the transferee.
→ If the transferee passes away before securing interest in the property, the contingent
interest will cease to exist and the transferor shall continue to be the property’s owner.
→ Contingent interest is transferable in nature. But the contingent interest being heritable
or not is dependent on the said event and the nature of the agreement.

14
 CASE LAWS

In the case of Leake v. Robinson (1817) 2 Mer 363, the court observed that if a case is such
in which the bequest is meant to be transferred upon or after turning a particular age, then it
can be inferred that the transfer is regarding a contingent interest.

In Rajesh Kanta Roy v. Shrimati Sunita Debi AIR 1957 SC 255, the Supreme Court ruled
that the interest acquired by the two siblings under the trust deed was vested and not contingent
because it was a certain event that was bound to happen unlike under contingent interest which
is inviolable and cannot be transferred.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONTINGENT AND VESTED INTEREST

❖ An estate or interest is vested, as distinguished from contingent, either when enjoyment

of it is presently conferred or when its enjoyment is postponed the time of the enjoyment
of the will certainly come to pass, in other words, an estate is vested when the immediate
right of present enjoyment or future enjoyment .
❖ An interest is said to be contingent interest if enjoyment depend upon some event this
the difference between vested interest and contingent interest.

1) Transferee's right in property.-

In a vested interest the transferee as present fixed right in property.

In contingent interest the transferee has merely a future possible right in the property.

In vest interest even though the enjoyment is postponed a person still has a present right
however in case of a contingent interest there is no present right.

2) Transferability.-

Vested and contingent interests both are transferable.

However, in vested interest the transferee gets the complete title but in case of
contingent claim to title may be defeated if there is non-happening of the event.
Contingent interest is inalienable in nature.

3) Attachment and sale in execution of decree.-

A vested interest is capable of being attached or sold in execution of a decree whereas,

a contingent interest cannot be sold in execution of any decree.

15
 A merely contingent or possible interest is not liable to attachment and sale in execution
of a decree.

4) Heritability-

Vested interest is heritable but contingent is not heritable because vested interest is
property of the transferee and he has been conferred a title by the virtue of interest being
vested but there is no such title in case of contingent interest.

5) Accrual of interest

On transfer of a property in case of vested interest the transferee accrues immediately

but in case of contingent interest it all depends on the happening of the uncertain
specific event.

6) Condition

Vested interest should be without any condition while contingent interest is solely based
on the contingency of happening of the specific uncertain event

CASE LAW

Rajesh Kanta Roy vs Shrimati Sunita Debi

FACTS OF THE CASE

→ One Ramani Kanta Roy executed a registered trust deed in respect of his properties.

→ The eldest son Rajesh was appointed the sole Trustee to hold the properties under the
trust subject to certain power and obligation.

→ After his death his two son Rajesh and Ramendra got interest in the property.

→ There was a clause in the trust deed that both of them was to get interest in the properties
allotted to each other happening of the two events –

1. Discharge of all the debts specified in the schedule and death of the settler himself.

2. The trust was to come to an end on the death of settler and the son were to get properties
allotted to them thereafter.

Issue before the court was whether the interest created by the trust were vested or
contingent?

16
The Supreme Court held that the interest taken by the two brothers under the trust deed was
vested and not contingent because it was certain event.

A contingent interest depend solely upon the fulfilment of the condition. In contingent interest
there is no present right, there is a promise to give right upon the fulfilment of a condition.

A contingent interest is inalienable and not transferable.

CONCLUSION

The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 addresses two types of interest, namely vested interest and
contingent interest. It is imperative to study and comprehend both concepts because there are
numerous provisions under the Act relevant to them. The main reasoning behind the concept is
that the transfer of a property regarding contingent interest effectuates only once the condition
is satisfied, otherwise the transfer ceases to exist.

The conditions need to be satisfied and ought to mandatorily be in compliance with the rules
of justice, equity, and good conscience mentioned in the preamble, the three principles of
natural law on which this entire Act is based.

17
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Dr. G.P. Tripathi, Transfer of Property Act, Central law Publications,2020

2. Dr. R.K. Sinha, The Transfer of Property, Central law Agency,2018

3. Dr. Avtar Singh, Textbook on the Transfer of Property Act, Lexis Nexis,2024

REFERENCES

1. Manupatra. (n.d.). Articles. The-Doctrine-of-Lis-Pendens.

2. Doctrine of Lis Pendens, Section 52 of TOPA - (n.d.). Drishti Judiciary.

3. Sharma. M., National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam. (2021). A STUDY
ON VESTED AND CONTINGENT INTEREST [Thesis]. (pp. 1–15).

4. Dharia, D. (2020, February 5). Contingent and vested interest. Law Times Journal.

5. Menon, A., & Menon, A. (2021, August 8). Vested interest and contingent interest.
Libertatem Magazine.

18