New Enroll here to Join NaBFID Analyst Into Class on May 6

    Question

      In which of the following cases did the court held

    that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act was enacted for the interests of a particular section of the society. The people of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe were in need of protection and support. Therefore, in pursuance of the Directive Principles of State Policy, the said Act was passed. Therefore, it was of the nature of a special act. As such, the provisions of a general act would not be applicable to such an act. Therefore, Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act did not cover the situation in this case.
    A Harish Chandra Hegde v. State of Karnataka Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    B Wazirey v. Mathura Prasad Wazirey Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    C Mardia Chemicals v. Union of India Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    D Smt. Laxmi Vs. Sethani Mukand Kanwar Correct Answer Incorrect Answer

    Solution

    In the case of Harish Chandra Hegde v. State of Karnataka , certain sections of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act were in conflict with Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court held that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act was enacted for the interests of a particular section of the society. The people of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe were in need of protection and support. Therefore, in pursuance of the Directive Principles of State Policy, the said Act was passed. Therefore, it was of the nature of a special act. As such, the provisions of a general act would not be applicable to such an act. Therefore, Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act did not cover the situation in this case. Wazirey Vs. Mathura Prasad Wazirey - In this case the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that as the sale deed was executed after the order of annulment, it was invalid under section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (V of 1920). Here the court held that the Insolvency Act would prevail over the Transfer of Property Act.   The court was of the opinion that the case is covered by section 2(d) of the Transfer of Property Act. The words of the section applicable are “transfer by order of a Court of competent jurisdiction”. The Official Receiver’s sale falls within the words In Mardia Chemicals Vs. Union of India- it was held that what was conceived correct in the situation then prevailing may not be so in the present day situation. New institutions have come into being and as such the legislations are also framed in that situation. Therefore, these become more relevant. In this case, certain sections of the Transfer of Property Act, the general law on the subject, has been overridden by the special enactment namely the Securitisation Act. In the case of Smt. Laxmi Vs. Sethani Mukand Kanwar the relation between s.2(d) and s. 5 of the Transfer of Property Act has been discussed.

    Practice Next