K Muniswamy V. K Venkataswamy: A Case On The Fine Line Of Restraint
- IJLLR Journal
- Dec 31, 2024
- 2 min read
Bhumika Sanyal, BA.LLB 2021, O.P Jindal Global University
I. A glimpse into the dynamics of restraint on property
The case of K. Muniswamy v. K. Venkataswamy1 is a landmark decision addressing the alienation of property and the permissible boundaries of conditions imposed by transferors on transferees. It significantly contributes to the discourse on ownership as a bundle of rights, clarifying the distinction between valid and invalid restraints on alienation. A foundational understanding of the difference between absolute and partial restraints under property law is essential to appreciate this case’s implications, and to to grasp where the transferor’s rights and liabilities end and where those of the transferee begin.
“Restrictions upon the grantee's right to transfer the property, at any time, to whomsoever he may choose, and in whatever manner he may select, are called ‘restraints on alienation’”.
These restraints may be absolute or partial. Section 103 of the Transfer of Property Act (“The Act”) establishes the principle that conditions or limitations absolutely restraining the transferee from disposing of their interest in the property are void, although the transfer itself remains valid.
The transferee is completely restricted from devolving his interest in the property and cannot exercise his freedom over the property in the capacity of an owner. On the other hand, partial restraints only interfere with the transferee’s right to divest his interest in the property to a limited extent, allowing greater freedom over property, and therefore, constituting a valid condition.
In the present case, the appellant and respondent were brothers who, along with their father, divided their joint properties in 1969 under a registered partition deed. The property was allocated to the parents with the provision that it was to be enjoyed by them during their lifetime, after which the property would pass in equal shares to their sons, the appellant, and the respondent. The property was sold by the parents to the respondent in 1977 through a registered sale deed. After the parents’ passing, the appellant filed a lawsuit seeking his share of the property, arguing that his parents had no absolute right to alienate the property. The respondent asserted his exclusive title to the property and argued that the lawsuit was time- barred.
