Pratima Chowdhury v. Kalpana Mukherjee & Ors. (AIR 2014 SC 1304)

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court set aside a claimed transfer of a co-operative flat to Kalpana Mukherjee. The Court found that the transfer was not proved to be genuine, that legal formalities were not followed, and that the surrounding circumstances showed undue influence over Pratima Chowdhury. Possession alone could not create ownership, and Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act could not be used to assert title.

Issues

• Can a flat transfer that ignores legal formalities vest ownership in the transferee?
• Can such a transferee protect possession against the true owner’s claim?

Rules

• Title passes only when law-required steps (e.g., proper registration and society rules) are followed.
• Consent must be free—no fraud, coercion, or undue influence.
• When the transfer is challenged, the person relying on it must prove its genuineness.
• Section 53A TPA is defensive. It can protect qualified possession but does not create ownership or an active title claim.

Facts (Timeline)

Arguments

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed Pratima’s appeal. It restored the arbitrator’s view and declared the alleged transfer to Kalpana invalid. The Court noted a relationship of trust where Partha held a dominant position. On the facts, the burden lay on Kalpana to prove a clean, lawful transfer; she failed to do so. The Court also found it unnatural that a valuable flat would be transferred free of cost without a close relationship. Kalpana was directed to vacate and hand back possession to Pratima.

Ratio

• In a suspected dominance/undue influence scenario, the alleged transferee must prove a voluntary, lawful transfer.
• Non-compliance with legal formalities defeats the claim of title even if possession exists.
• Section 53A TPA is a shield, not a sword—no ownership flows from it.

Why It Matters

Co-operative housing transfers often rely on letters and internal approvals. This ruling warns that such steps cannot replace statutory requirements. It also clarifies that possession is not equal to title and that Section 53A cannot be stretched to create ownership.

Key Takeaways

• Follow the statute and the Society’s bye-laws; otherwise, no title passes.
• Zero-consideration with weak relationship = red flag.
• Undue influence flips the burden to the beneficiary of the transaction.
• Section 53A protects possession defensively, not ownership.
• Arbitrator’s fact-based findings can be restored if higher forums overlook key evidence.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “FORM–FREE–FENCE”

• FORM: No formality, no title.
• FREE: Consent must be free from dominance.
• FENCE: Section 53A is only a fence (defence), not a gate to ownership.

3-Step Hook: Check Formalities → test Free Consent → limit to Defence under 53A.

IRAC Outline

Glossary

Undue Influence

A stronger party uses a position of dominance to obtain consent; law then demands strict proof from the beneficiary.

Section 53A TPA

Part performance defence: protects possession if conditions are met; does not grant ownership.

Co-operative Society Transfer

Internal approvals + statutory registration/requirements; one cannot replace the other.

FAQs

Related Cases