Jumma Masjid Mercara v Kodimaniandra Deviah

Facts

• Transferor professed to transfer property claiming present title (which he did not have)
• Transfer was for consideration and transferee acted in good faith
• Transferor subsequently acquired title to the same property
• Question: does the subsequently acquired title automatically feed the earlier defective grant?

Issue

1. Whether S.43 operates automatically to vest the subsequently acquired interest in the original transferee, and whether it conflicts with S.6(a) (spes successionis).

Held

• S.43 operates as an estoppel against the transferor. The interest passes to the transferee the moment the transferor acquires it, without any fresh conveyance. S.43 does not conflict with S.6(a) because they address different situations: S.6(a) deals with transfer of a FUTURE HOPE (honestly disclosed); S.43 deals with transfer claiming PRESENT authority (representation of existing title).

Ratio Decidendi

Where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents present authority and transfers for consideration, and later acquires the property, the doctrine of feeding the grant applies. The transfer is perfected retroactively. The key distinction from spes successionis: S.43 applies when the transferor CLAIMS present title; S.6(a) applies when the transferor honestly discloses it is a future expectation.