Transfer of Future Property Under Section 6 TPA: The Agreement to Transfer and When Title Passes
- Umang
- 13 hours ago
- 17 min read
Table of Contents
The Problem of Transferring What You Do Not Yet Own
A farmer agrees to sell next season's harvest to a food processing company for an advance payment. A real estate developer sells flats in a building not yet constructed. A reversioner, expecting to inherit property currently held by a Hindu widow, transfers his chance of succession to a third party. A vendor sells land to which he does not yet have title, expecting to acquire it through a court decree.
Each of these transactions raises the same fundamental question: can a person transfer what he does not yet own? The answer is crucial not because such transactions are common — they are — but because the legal consequences differ dramatically depending on whether the transaction is treated as a completed transfer, a contract for future transfer, or a nullity.
Indian property law provides a carefully structured answer. The general rule is that present property may be transferred; property that does not exist, or that the transferor does not yet own, cannot be transferred — but a purported transfer of future property operates as something equally important: a valid contract to transfer, enforceable when the property comes into existence.
The Statutory Framework: Property 'of Any Kind' but Not Future Property
Section 6's Opening Rule and Its Implicit Qualification
Section 6 of the TPA opens with the broadest possible statement of transferability: "Property of any kind may be transferred." This proclamation of generality is immediately qualified by the Act itself and by the courts' interpretation of it.
The qualification that directly bears on future property was established early and emphatically: property of any kind does not include future property — Rajah Sahib Perblad v. Budboo (1869) 12 MIA 275. A transfer of future property can only operate as a contract which may be specifically performed when the property comes into existence.
The logic is straightforward: Section 5 of the TPA defines a "transfer of property" as an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more living persons. The phrase "in present or in future" qualifies the word "conveys" — it refers to the time at which the conveyance takes effect, not to the nature of the property being conveyed.
Property that does not yet exist cannot be "conveyed" at all; the best that can be accomplished is an agreement that it will be conveyed once it comes into existence.
The Privy Council in Rajah Sahib Perblad v Budboo
The Privy Council's reasoning bears quotation:
But how can there be any transfer, actual or constructive, upon a contract under which the vendor sells that of which he has not possession, and to which he may never establish a title? The bill of sale in such a case can only be evidence of a contract to be performed in the future, and upon the happening of a contingency, of which the purchaser may claim a specific performance, if he comes into court showing that he has himself done all that he was bound to do.
Two propositions are distilled from this:
A purported transfer of future property cannot be a transfer at all — the vendor lacks the capacity to convey.
Such a transaction is not void or without effect; it survives as a contract to transfer, specifically enforceable.
Section 5 and the 'In Present or In Future' Qualification
The Supreme Court confirmed in Jugal Kishore v. Raw Cotton Co. [1955] 1 SCR 1369 that the words "in present or in future" in Section 5 qualify "conveys," not "property." The time reference ("in present or in future") modifies when the conveyance takes effect, not what the nature of the property is.
Future property — property not yet in existence or not yet owned — cannot be the subject of a present conveyance in the TPA sense. The conveyance machinery requires existing property to work upon.
What Is 'Future Property'?
Property Not Yet Owned by the Transferor
Future property is, at the most basic level, property that the transferor does not own at the date of the purported transfer — property he expects to acquire in the future, whether by purchase, inheritance, litigation, or any other means.
Future Crops: Specifically Excluded from the Definition
Under the TPA's definitional framework, growing crops and grass are not immovable property — they are movable. A sale of standing crops (to be harvested) is a sale of movable goods and does not require a registered instrument.
This means that a farmer who agrees to sell next season's crop is not making a "transfer" within the TPA's property-transfer framework at all — he is entering into a contract for the sale of future goods under the general law of contract.
The Distinction Between Future Property and After-Acquired Property
A useful distinction runs through the case law between:
Future property in the strict sense — property that does not yet exist at the date of the agreement (a crop not yet grown, a building not yet constructed)
After-acquired property — property that exists but is not yet owned by the transferor at the date of the agreement, but which the transferor later acquires (land purchased by someone other than the transferor, which the transferor subsequently buys; an inheritance that has not yet fallen in)
Both categories are treated similarly for TPA purposes — neither can be the subject of a present conveyance, and a purported transfer of either operates only as a contract. But the mechanisms through which the transfer is completed differ, as discussed below.
Bare Possibilities: A Different Category
A bare possibility — the chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate, the chance of a relation obtaining a legacy — is entirely different from future property. Bare possibilities cannot even support a contract to transfer; they are void under Section 6(a) as spes successionis.
Future property, by contrast, can validly support a contract and ripens into a completed transfer once the property comes into existence. The key distinction is that future property is something the transferor has a reasonable prospect of acquiring through lawful means; a bare possibility is merely a hope with no legal foundation.
The Legal Effect of a Purported Transfer of Future Property
Operates Only as a Contract
A purported transfer of future property operates as a contract — not a transfer. This is the settled position confirmed by both the Privy Council and the Supreme Court: "A transfer of property not in existence operates as a contract to be performed in the future which may be specifically enforced as soon as the property comes into existence" — Jugal Kishore v. Raw Cotton Co. [1955] 1 SCR 1369.
The transaction is therefore not void; it is merely incomplete. It binds the transferor contractually to execute a proper conveyance or deliver the property when it comes into or is acquired by him.
Specifically Enforceable When Property Comes Into Existence
The moment the property comes into existence or is acquired by the transferor, specific performance becomes available to the transferee. He can sue to compel the completion of the transfer. The contract crystallises into an executory obligation the moment the transferor has the property to give — and equity (specifically enforced through the courts) will compel performance.
This is a powerful protection for the transferee. He has paid his consideration; the transferor cannot simply refuse to convey once the property exists. The transaction, though it could not be a transfer when made, is specifically enforceable when the property comes into existence.
Illustration: The After-Acquired Property Principle
A contract for the sale of property which is not the vendor's at the time of the contract, but which the vendor thinks of acquiring by purchase later on, is not bad in law — Premsukh v. Habib Ullah (1945) ILR 2 Cal 375. This illustrates the "after-acquired property" principle: the vendor contracts today to sell what he will own tomorrow. The contract is valid; it fastens on the property the moment the vendor acquires it.
It has been held that a transfer of non-existent or after-acquired property, provided it is not of the nature contemplated in Section 6(a) (a bare possibility), is perfectly valid and is to be regarded in a court as a contract to transfer after the vendor acquires the title — and will fasten upon the property as soon as the vendor acquires it — Khobhari Singh v. Ram Prosad Roy (1907) 7 Cal LJ 387.
When the Obligation Attaches: Section 40 and the Contractual Obligation
When the transferor acquires the property and an obligation arises under Section 40 of the TPA — a personal obligation arising out of contract annexed to the ownership of property — that obligation may be enforced against the transferor. As the Supreme Court has confirmed: "upon such a transfer or afterwards acquiring the property, an obligation undoubtedly attaches to the property under section 40, and the transfer also operates under section 43 on the interest acquired by the transferor."
The Section 40 obligation is the contractual right of the original transferee to enforce the agreement against the transferor once the property is acquired. This obligation is annexed to the ownership of the property and may be enforced against the transferor (or against a subsequent transferee who takes with notice of it).
Section 43 TPA: Feeding the Estoppel on After-Acquired Property
The Rule of Feeding the Estoppel
Section 43 of the TPA provides the primary statutory mechanism through which a purported transfer of after-acquired property ripens into a completed transfer. It provides:
Where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, 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.
This is the doctrine of "feeding the estoppel" or "feeding the grant." A person who has made a representation of title, however erroneously, is estopped from denying that title as against a person who acted on the representation.
When the title later arrives — when the transferor acquires the property he had represented himself as having the right to transfer — the earlier transfer is fed by the subsequently acquired interest.
The words "fraudulently or" were inserted by the amending Act of 1929. Section 43 therefore applies whether the misrepresentation was dishonest or merely mistaken.
Jumma Masjid Mercara v Kodimaniandra Devaiah: The Governing Authority
The Supreme Court in Jumma Masjid Mercara v. Kodimaniandra Devaiah AIR 1962 SC 847 established the governing principle:
Section 43 embodies a rule of estoppel, and enacts that a person who makes a representation shall not be heard to allege the contrary as against a person who acts on such representation. It is immaterial whether the transferor acts bona fide or fraudulently in making the representation. It is only material to find out whether in fact the transferee has been misled.
The court overruled a line of Madras decisions that had held Section 43 inapplicable to reversioners who purport to transfer properties to which they have only a chance of succeeding. The court held: where a reversioner has represented to the transferee that he was absolutely entitled to the properties, and subsequently acquires title to them, Section 43 operates to feed the earlier transfer — provided the transferee did not know the true position.
Section 43 and Future Property vs Section 6: The Complementary Relationship
Section 6 (read with the Privy Council's principle that future property transfers operate only as contracts) and Section 43 operate together as a complementary pair:
Section 6 says: a purported transfer of property the transferor does not own is not a transfer — it is only a contract.
Section 43 says: if that purported transfer was accompanied by a representation of authority, the transferor is estopped from denying the transfer when he subsequently acquires the property.
The difference is that Section 6's principle (pure contract) does not require any representation — the mere purported transfer triggers the contractual mechanism.
Section 43 specifically requires a representation of authority (fraudulent or erroneous). Where both apply, the Section 43 mechanism is stronger: it creates an option in the transferee to call for the property as soon as the transferor acquires it, operating directly on the interest acquired rather than merely requiring a further contract for transfer.
The Transferee's Option
Section 43 gives the transferee an option — not an automatic vesting. When the transferor acquires the property, the transferee may choose to invoke Section 43 and claim that the interest has passed to him. If the transferee chooses not to exercise the option, or if the contract of transfer no longer subsists (having been rescinded, frustrated, or lapsed), Section 43 does not operate.
This option is exercisable against the transferor, against his heirs, and against all persons claiming under him — except a purchaser in good faith for consideration without notice of the option's existence.
The Protection of Subsequent Purchasers in Good Faith
Section 43 itself protects a third party who subsequently acquires the property from the transferor in good faith for consideration and without notice of the earlier transfer or the option it created:
Nothing in this section shall impair the right of transferees in good faith for consideration without notice of the existence of the said option.
The proviso reflects the balance between two competing equities: the first transferee's contractual right to the property, and the subsequent purchaser's legitimate reliance on the transferor's apparent title. Where the subsequent purchaser has no notice of the first transaction, his title prevails.
If property is transferred for a consideration in good faith without misrepresentation of fraud and the transferee had taken reasonable steps to ascertain the title of the transferor, such transfer would not be void — V. Chandrasekharan v. Administrative Officer (2012) 12 SCC 133.
The Specific Cases: What Counts and What Does Not
Property Vendor Thinks of Acquiring Later: Valid Contract
A contract for the sale of a property which is not the vendor's at the time of the contract, but which the vendor thinks of acquiring by purchase later on, is not bad in law — Premsukh v. Habib Ullah (1945) ILR 2 Cal 375. Such a contract is a valid agreement to transfer future (after-acquired) property. It is specifically enforceable once the vendor acquires the property.
Vendor's Interest in Purchase Money Before Sale: Mere Possibility
Prior to the completion of a sale, a vendor's interest in the purchase money is only a possibility which cannot be transferred — Ahmeduddin v. Majlis (1881) ILR 3 All 12. Before the sale is completed and the property passes to the buyer, the vendor has a mere expectation of receiving the purchase money — not a present right. This falls into the category of a bare possibility rather than future property in the contract-to-transfer sense, and cannot be validly assigned.
Coal Ash and Potential Property
It has been held that a property such as coal ash, which is not in existence on the day of the contract but would be available in due course of time, becomes potential property — and a sale in respect of such a property is established by a contract.
The title in such property passes onto the purchaser, although it is held by the seller in the capacity of a trustee until delivery — Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Ram Berai Prasad AIR 1985 All 265. This is an application of the future property principle: the coal ash does not exist yet, but the vendor has a prospective entitlement to it (it will be generated by his operations), and the contract is valid and specifically enforceable.
Statutory Compensation Rights: Not Future Property
Statutory rights of claimants to compensation that crystallise on assessment and verification of claims are separate rights to property and cannot vanish or evaporate on the death of the claimant — Union of India v. Iqbal Singh [1976] 2 SCR 988.
These are not "future property" in the sense that they might never come into existence; they are accruing rights that exist from the moment of the entitling event, even if their precise quantum is not yet determined.
Pre-Completion Assignment in Partition Suits
In a suit for partition, between the passing of the preliminary decree and the final decree, an assignment of the property is not valid as more property can be added and the principle that each co-sharer has a right over every inch of the property applies — Durga Matha Building Constructions Co-op Housing Society Ltd. v. Sada Yellaiah AIR 2010 AP 231.
Until the final decree specifies what property each share consists of, the share is not "property" that can be conveyed — it is a future interest whose precise content remains to be determined.
When Title Passes: The Moment of Vesting
Vesting on Acquisition by the Transferor
The key temporal question in any future property transaction is: exactly when does title pass to the transferee?
The answer, both under the Section 6 contract principle and under Section 43, is: title passes (or the option to claim it matures) at the moment the transferor acquires the property — not before, and not at any later date by formal re-execution or re-delivery.
In Jugal Kishore v. Raw Cotton Co. the Supreme Court confirmed that the transfer operates on the interest acquired by the transferor — the property "fastens upon" the transferee's claim the moment the transferor has it to give. This automatic vesting (or the crystallisation of the option under Section 43) is the mechanism that protects the transferee without requiring any further act.
The operative words in the sale deed are also relevant. In one case, where the operative portion of a sale deed recorded that all rights and privileges in and concerning the property either in present or accruing in future as vesting in the vendor were the subject matter of the sale, the court held that even the vendor's right of reconveyance was transferred by the sale deed — Khiria Devi Jagdish Sao v. Rameshwar Sao Parsadi Sao AIR 1992 SC 1482.
The Bona Fide Transferee for Value Without Notice: The Priority Problem
The automatic vesting on acquisition creates a priority problem. If the transferor acquires the property and, before the first transferee exercises his option (or before the contractual obligation becomes known), sells or mortgages the property to a third party — who prevails?
The answer depends on notice.
As the Privy Council and the TPA both establish: the interest of the first transferee (under a future property agreement) may not prevail against a bona fide transferee for value without notice. Section 43 expressly protects such a subsequent purchaser. Section 40's obligation — though annexed to the property — cannot be enforced against a transferee for consideration without notice of the prior agreement.
This creates the practical imperative: a transferee who takes property under a future property agreement should register the agreement (or some notice of it) as soon as possible to protect against a subsequent bona fide purchaser. Once the property is acquired by the transferor, the transferee should immediately call for the formal conveyance.
The Section 40 Obligation as a Property Encumbrance
Section 40 of the TPA provides that an obligation arising out of contract annexed to the ownership of immovable property may be enforced against a transferee with notice of it. A person who purchases the property from the transferor with actual or constructive notice of the prior agreement to transfer is bound by that agreement. He cannot take free of the contractual obligation that attaches to the property.
The obligation under a future property agreement therefore operates as a form of equitable encumbrance on the property once it is acquired by the transferor — binding against all persons who take with notice, but not against a bona fide purchaser without notice.
Future Crops: A Partial Exception
Agricultural produce — growing crops, standing timber (in certain circumstances), and grass — raises particular issues because Section 3 of the TPA excludes growing crops and grass from the definition of immovable property. These are treated as movable property (or goods).
A mortgage of a future crop has been recognised as valid in India — but such a mortgage will not affect a transferee without notice. The future crop, once it comes into existence, is bound by the mortgage; but the mortgage creates no interest in the land itself, only in the crop once grown.
The notice requirement is important: because crops are movable property (not subject to the TPA's registration-as-notice framework for immovable property), a third party without actual notice of the mortgage is not bound.
Future Property in Mortgage Transactions
Questions about future property arise frequently in mortgage contexts. A mortgage of future property — property that the mortgagor expects to acquire — operates, like all future property transfers, as an agreement to mortgage rather than a completed mortgage. The mortgage security only attaches when the property is acquired.
This is consistent with the general principle: the mortgage deed creates a contract, specifically enforceable; upon acquisition of the property, the mortgagee's security interest crystallises without the need for a fresh instrument. Section 43 assists here: if the mortgagor represented himself as authorised to mortgage the property, the mortgage is fed when he acquires it.
Practical Implications
For the property practitioner, the future property doctrine raises several practical concerns:
In drafting agreements: Where a vendor is selling property he does not yet own (anticipating acquisition by purchase, court order, or inheritance), the agreement should be framed as a contract to transfer (not a deed of transfer) and should specify the condition precedent (the acquisition of title) and the timeframe within which the vendor is to complete the transfer.
For the transferee's protection: Registration of the agreement under the Registration Act — even as an agreement to sell — gives constructive notice to subsequent purchasers, preventing a bona fide purchaser defence. Alternatively, the transferee should insist on a completion of the registered conveyance as soon as the transferor acquires the property.
In mortgage transactions: A mortgagee lending against property the mortgagor is about to acquire should ensure the mortgage deed is capable of taking effect as a contractual security and that the security is formalised by a registered mortgage deed the moment the mortgagor acquires title.
For Section 43 claims: A transferee invoking Section 43 must demonstrate: (a) a representation (fraudulent or erroneous) of authority to transfer; (b) a transfer for consideration; (c) subsequent acquisition of the property by the transferor; and (d) that the contract of transfer still subsists. The transferee must also show that the party against whom Section 43 is invoked is not a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
Conclusion
The TPA's treatment of future property reflects a sophisticated balancing act. Future property cannot be the subject of a completed transfer — that is the rule. But a purported transfer is not void; it is a contract that is specifically enforceable when the property comes into existence or is acquired by the transferor.
Section 43 augments this framework by feeding the estoppel: a transferor who represents himself as having authority to transfer cannot subsequently deny that authority when he acquires the property, and the earlier transfer is given effect as though the transferor had actual title when he made it.
The critical practical point is timing: the obligation to transfer fastens on the property at the moment of acquisition; the transferee's right crystallises then; and the transferee who acts quickly to formalise his title is protected. The transferee who sleeps risks being displaced by a bona fide subsequent purchaser without notice — against whom neither the Section 6 contract principle nor Section 43 can be invoked.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Does a transfer of future property automatically pass title when the transferor acquires the property?
Not automatically in a technical sense — but it creates an obligation that is immediately specifically enforceable and an option (under Section 43) that the transferee may exercise. The moment the transferor acquires the property, the earlier agreement crystallises into an enforceable right, and the transferee can compel a formal conveyance.
If the transferor resists, the transferee may seek specific performance. Against all persons with notice of the prior agreement, the obligation binds through Section 40 of the TPA.
Q: What is the difference between a transfer of future property and a spes successionis?
A transfer of future property is a valid contract — specifically enforceable when the property comes into existence or is acquired. A spes successionis (bare possibility of succession) cannot even support a valid contract; it is void under Section 6(a).
The distinction lies in the degree of certainty and legal recognition: future property is something the transferor has a reasonable prospect of acquiring through lawful means; a bare possibility is merely a statistical hope. A reversionary heir's "chance" of inheriting on the death of a Hindu widow is a spes — void, not merely a contract. But a vendor's right to acquire specific land through a pending sale is future property — valid contract.
Q: Can a mortgage of future property be enforced once the mortgagor acquires the property?
Yes. A mortgage of future (after-acquired) property operates as an agreement to mortgage when made. Once the mortgagor acquires the property, the mortgage security attaches to it, and the mortgagee may enforce the security without a fresh mortgage instrument. Section 43 supports this: the mortgagor's representation of authority to mortgage is fed by his subsequent acquisition. However, the mortgagee must be vigilant — if a bona fide subsequent purchaser acquires the property without notice of the mortgage before the mortgage is formalised, the mortgagee's security may be displaced.
Q: What does Section 43 TPA add to the general principle about future property?
Section 43 adds the specific mechanism of estoppel: where the transferor has made a representation of authority (fraudulent or erroneous), he is estopped from denying that authority once he acquires the property. The general future property principle (Section 6 + Privy Council) requires only a purported transfer — no representation is needed.
Section 43 specifically requires a representation, but its effect is more direct: it causes the earlier transfer to "operate on" the after-acquired interest, as if the transferor had had title when he transferred. The two mechanisms are complementary and often both applicable in after-acquired property situations.
Q: How does the future property doctrine interact with a bona fide purchaser from the transferor?
The future property agreement (operating as a contract under Section 6) creates a personal obligation on the transferor, enforceable under Section 40 against subsequent transferees with notice. A subsequent bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the earlier agreement takes free of that obligation — neither Section 40 nor Section 43 applies against such a purchaser. This underscores the practical importance of registering the agreement and formalising the transfer as soon as the transferor acquires the property.
Comments