JGU Id. No.

_____________

O.P. Jindal Global University

Jindal Global Law School
End-term Examination – Semester B

Course Name : Property Law

Course Code : L-CT-0005
Programme : B.A., LL.B. & B.B.A., LL.B. – Year II (2016)
Session : 2017 - 2018
Time Allowed : 3 Hours
Maximum Marks : 50

This question paper has five (5) printed pages (including this page).

Instructions to students:

1. This paper has two (2) parts. Part A comprises of two (2) questions that carry five (5) marks each, of
which the students are required to answer BOTH questions. Part B comprises of five (5) questions that
carry ten (10) marks each, of which the students are required to attempt any four (4) questions.
2. Please pay attention to the word limits that have been prescribed for the answers.
3. DO NOT write your Name and Student Id. No. anywhere on the answer book except on the space
provided.
4. DO NOT write anything on the question paper except Student Id. No. on the space provided.
5. Start each question on a new page.
6. Use of mobile phone or any electronic storage and access system is prohibited.
7. Students undertaking the examination are requested to adhere to the University norms related to
examinations.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
This is a Closed Book examination. However, students are allowed to bring the Bare Act for the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 and the Registration Act, 1908 in the Examination Hall. Case List is included in the question
paper.
Warning: Plagiarism in any form is prohibited. Anyone found using unfair means will be penalized
severely.
JGLS [End-term Examination - Semester B, 2017 - 2018] Page 1
 Part A

Attempt both the following questions. Each question carries five (5) marks. Restrict your answer to 250
words.

1. On October 30, 1959, Uttpal Dutt decided to transfer his entire estate to his only son, Sanjay Dutt for life,
then to Sanjay’s to-be-born child for life, and finally to Sanjay Dutt’s eldest grandchild who shall take interest
in this property on the completion of his schooling. At the time of the transfer, Sanjay Dutt had been missing
for 3 months and his partner, Leela Vashisht, was pregnant with their child. On March 16, 1960, Leela gives
birth to a child, who is named Gopal Dutt. In February 1961, the family obtains a police verification report
that states that Sanjay Dutt was murdered on September 23, 1959. Gopal Dutt’s eldest child, Sakshi Dutt was
born on September 4, 1990. Gopal Dutt died in 2007, and on completing her schooling in May 2008, Sakshi
files for an execution of his great-grandfather’s deed of transfer according to which she is entitled to the entire
Dutt estate. However, Utpal Dutt’s brother, Anubhav Dutt claims that he is the rightful owner of this estate
because the transfer made by Utpal Dutt is invalid. Assume that Sakshi Dutt is Gopal Dutt’s sole heir. Decide
who is the lawful owner of the property. (5 Marks)

2. Suryavardhan executed a deed whereby he transferred all his assets - comprising largely of cash, jewels, some
movable property, and a house - to a trust, settled for the benefit of his daughters. He named his sister, Anita
as trustee; upon her death, however, his eldest daughter, Geeta (and on her death, his younger daughter, Savita)
would be the trustee. The trust deed provided that each month a sum of INR 15,000 from the proceeds of the
trust would be utilized for the discharge of his debts. Further, the trust deed provided that at the time of her
marriage, the elder daughter would receive jewels worth INR 2,00,000 and INR 5,00,000 should be spent for
her marriage from the trust property. Similarly, the trust deed provided that on the marriage of his second
daughter Savita, jewels worth INR 2,00,000 should be given and marriage expenses of INR 5,00,000 should
be incurred, again from the trust property. Further, the deed provided that the trust would stand dissolved once
both the debts are cleared and the daughters have been married. Upon dissolution, the house would stand
transferred to Savita, unless Geeta clears the debts within five years from the date of the deed, in which case,
she will receive absolute interest in the house on dissolution. Identify the nature of the interest created in
favour of the two sisters in the trust property, particularly the jewelry and the house. (5 Marks)

Part B

Attempt any four (4) of the following five (5) questions. Each question carries ten (10) marks. Restrict your
answer to 500 words.

3. After his mother passed away, Ram spent five years as an ascetic. In the fifth year of ascetic life, due to old
age, he contracted an incurable disease and returned to his family home in Jamnagar to spend his last
remaining days. He passed away within a month of his return. Before death, he wrote a will bequeathing one
of his two plots of lands to his son Sundar and simultaneously, executed a gift deed in his daughter’s name
(Meena). Further, Ram’s will contained a clause that all movable property shall stand transferred with all
rights and liabilities to his old friend Manohar. However, Sundar, before his father returned to Jamnagar,
losing all hope of seeing his father again and assuming that he would inherit his movable and immovable
property, transferred both plots of land to the unsuspecting Raman under a sale deed for valuable
JGLS [End-term Examination - Semester B, 2017 - 2018] Page 2
 consideration. Raman believed that Sundar was the owner of this property. Decide whether Raman can claim
any rights or interest in either of the two plots of land.

Further, decide whether Manohar, pursuant to Ram’s will would now own (a) the mango and sheesham trees
that grow on the plot of land that was transferred to Meena (b) an old handloom machine that is attached to
the earth using nuts and bolts in one of the rooms. (10 Marks)

4. Sashi, despite pressure from her parents, refused to get married; and without marrying, in 2010, adopted a
five-month old baby named Mira. Her father, Amar, owned a house in Delhi called ‘Bose Bhawan’, where
the family lived. In an attempt to convince Sashi to get married, he drew up a deed under which he transferred
the house to her, with a proviso that if her younger sibling, Manu got married before Sashi it will stand
transferred to Manu. The deed also provided that the parents would be entitled to remain in possession of the
house till their death. Sashi, however, was unfazed by this. She lived separately from the rest of the family,
and worked hard to provide for her child. Manu, on the other hand, lived with their parents till they died in
2015, and continued living in the house even after their death. In December 2017, Sashi died unexpectedly in
an accident, two months before Manu got married. Sashi had written a will bequeathing all her property to
Mira.

Further, it was discovered that the conveyance deed, under which Amar purchased the house, provided that
the purchaser and all subsequent transferees would be prohibited from renaming the house or changing the
outer façade of the house. Alongside that, the agreement provided that the purchaser and all subsequent
transferees would not be permitted to sell the house to any third party, without first offering it to the vendor
or the vendor’s heirs at a price not greater than the market value of the house. The vendor, Sheila Bose, had
imposed these conditions because she was deeply attached to this house and the adjacent house, where her
family members had been living for generations. She had however been compelled to sell the house to Amar,
due to extreme financial difficulties. Sheila Bose continued to own the adjacent house, which was identical to
Bose Bhawan, and was named after her father as Subhas House.

Mira seeks your advice on (1) whether she can claim title to the house, or whether the house is now owned
by Manu and (2) assuming that she has title to the property, whether she is bound by the conditions imposed
by Sheila Bose. (10 Marks)

5. Ajay sells first floor of his house to Neelam and mortgages the second floor to Neelam for an amount of INR
10,000 via a registered mortgage deed. A month later Ajay is in need of some more money so he borrows INR
20,000 from Neelam, but this time she insists on possession of the property as well and accordingly,
possession was handed over. The second deed, executed on December 1, 2010, stated as follows:

“I, Ajay, in need of money to carry on my business had taken a loan from Neelam for INR 10,000. As I required
more for future business, I now agree to sell the property that was earlier given as security for INR 20,000,
and I agree to accept INR 20,000 as sale consideration for the property. I nor my heirs assigns or
representatives would have any right over the property sold. I have on this day given the possession of the
property to you and you may henceforth enjoy the said property as per your will and wish. However, if I
returned the amount of INR 20,000 within six months, you should re-convey the property to me at my cost. In
the event I fail to keep up my promise of six months, this deed itself should be treated as absolute sale deed.
On the expiry of six months, I shall have no right to demand the re-conveyance of the property.”
JGLS [End-term Examination - Semester B, 2017 - 2018] Page 3
 The deed also provided that an interest of 10% interest per annum would be payable at the end of six months.
It was also stated that out of the INR 20,000 borrowed, INR 10,000 would be kept to settle the previous
mortgage and the remaining INR 10,000 would be utilized for business purposes. Ajay was unable to make
the payment within the stipulated time. He is now able to repay the sum, but Neelam refuses to return the
property. She contends that the deed executed between her and Ajay was an outright sale with a condition to
retransfer. Further, Neelam has spent significant amount of money in maintenance and refurbishment of the
apartment. Ajay has approached you for advice on whether he would be able to file a suit for redemption, and
whether the court is likely to decide in his favour. (10 Marks)

6. BOURGEOIS is a leading fashion brand in Switzerland, dealing in apparel and accessories. It plans to expand
its business to India. By way of strategy, the board of BOURGEOIS decided to test the waters by setting up
its first franchise outlet in New Delhi, India and chose DREAMLAND Pvt Ltd as its first franchisee. One of
the covenants of the Franchise Agreement was for DREAMLAND Pvt. Ltd. to identify suitable leasehold
premises admeasuring 10,000 square feet in a prime location in New Delhi. Mr. John Fonso, the Managing
Director of DREAMLAND heard about vacant premises measuring 10,000 square feet in a prominent mall in
Vasant Kunj. John thus approached the owner, Ms. Rukmani Dey hoping to enter into a leasehold arrangement
for a term of five years. During the negotiations, Rukmani informed John some of the terms and conditions
of the intended arrangement, which she refers to as a license agreement, are as follows:

The license fee for premises would be INR 1,25,000 per month. The refundable security deposit payable by
DREAMLAND Pvt. Ltd. would be the equivalent of the fee for ten months. The initial term of the arrangement
would be for one year, which is renewable for a further term of two years, upon the discretion of the licensee.
The premises can be only used for conducting retail trade of garments; and in the event of any change in
nature of business sold, the prior consent of the licensor will have to be obtained to continue with the
arrangement. The licensee may not make any permanent changes/alterations/additions to the property. In the
event of such changes being made, the licensee shall incur the costs of restoring the property to the condition
that prevailed prior to the change made. In the event of any breach, the licensor can use the master key in her
possession to enter and evict DREAMLAND Pvt. Ltd. Either party can terminate the arrangement by serving
a notice in writing for a period of three months. The license is non-heritable, but transferable with the consent
of the licensor.

John seeks your advice before proceeding with this agreement, with respect to the following aspects:
(a) Whether the document requires registration, based on the nature of the interest created by the document
in favour of the licensee.
(b) Modifications, if any, that John should negotiate for so that the court is categorically inclined to hold the
deed as a lease.

Note that nothing in part (b) should be considered as a factor for answering part (a). (10 Marks)

7. The protection of the right to property was perceived as an obstacle to socio-economic reform, and judicial
review as an encroachment on parliamentary omnipotence. Discuss this statement in the context of the
evolution of the right to property under the Constitution of India. (10 Marks)

JGLS [End-term Examination - Semester B, 2017 - 2018] Page 4

 CASE LIST

 Abdul Shukoor v. Arji Papa Rao AIR 1963 SC 1150

 Ananda Behra v. State of Orissa (1955) 2 SCR 919
 Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor (AIR 1959 SC 1262)
 Bela Banerjee v. State of West Bengal- AIR 1954 SC 170
 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v Chembur Service Station, 2011(4) SCALE 209.
 Chaganlal v. Anantaraman, AIR 1961 Mad 415
 Dhanpal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal AIR 1979 SC 1745
 Duncan Industries Ltd. v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2000) SCC 633
 Ganga Dhar v. Shankar Lal, AIR 1958 SC 770
 Guruswamy Nadar v. P. Lakshmi Ammal (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors., (2008) 5 SCC 796.
 Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswamy, AIR 1973 SC 569
 John Thomas v Joseph Thomas, AIR 2000 Ker 408
 K. Muniswamy v. K. Venkataswamy, AIR 2001 Kant. 246
 Kenneth Solomon v. Dan Singh Bawa, AIR 1986 Del 1
 Kokilambal and Others v N. Raman, (2005) 11 SCC 234
 KT Plantation v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1
 Laxmidas Bapudas v. Rudravva 2001 (2) SCC 409
 Ma Yait v The Official Assignee (1930) 32 BOMLR 125
 Mohiree Bibi v. Dharamdas Ghose , (1903) ILR 30 Cal
 Muhammad Raza v. Abbas Bandi Bibi, (1932) I.A. 236
 Pomal Kanji Govindji v. Vrajlal Karsandas Purohit, AIR 1989 SC 436 : (1989) 1 SCC 458
 R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, 1970 (2) SCC 298
 Rajes Kanta Roy v Santi Debi AIR 1957 SC 255
 Sangar Gagu Dhula v. Shah Laxmiben Tejshi, AIR 2001 Guj. 329
 Shantabai v State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 532
 Shanti Devi v. Amal Kumar AIR 1981 SC 1550
 Shri Shivdev Singh & Anr vs Sh.Sucha Singh AIR 2000 SC 1935
 Sivayogeswara Cotton Press v. M. Panchaksharappa, AIR 1962 SC 413 (types of lease)
 State of Gujarat v. Shantilal 1969(1) SCC 509
 State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited, AIR 1985 SC 1293
 Subhas Chandra v Ganga Prasad, AIR 1967 SC 878
 Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd v. Maharaja Sir Brijnath Singhji Deo, AIR 1975 SC 1810.
 Suraj Lamps Pvt. Ltd. v State of Haryana, 2011 (11) SC 438.
 Suresh Chand v. Kundan (2001) 10 SCC 221
 Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited v. Comm. of Central Excise (2000) 7 SCC 29
 Tulk v. Moxhay (1848) 2 Ch. 774
 Union of India v. Metal Corporation of India Ltd- AIR 1967 SC 634
 V. N. Sarin v. Ajit Kr. Poplai AIR 1966 SC 432
 Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector- AIR 1965 SC 1017
 Vidhyadhar v Manikrao AIR 1999 SC 1441
 Zoroastrian Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. V. District Registrar, Co-op. Societies (Urban) (2005) 5 SCC 632

JGLS [End-term Examination - Semester B, 2017 - 2018] Page 5