TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,

1882

- Khyati Nayak
 CONTENT OUTLINE :
MODULE 8
● Lis Pendens
○ Analyzing the doctrine of Lis Pendens
○ Sections Referred: Section 52

MODULE 9
● Part Performance
○ Analyzing the doctrine of Part Performance
○ Sections Referred: Sec. 53A
 Section 52 in The Transfer of
Property Act
LIS PENDENS
 SECTION 52 IN THE TRANSFER OF
PROPERTY ACT, 1882
● 52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto—
● During the [pendency] in any Court having authority [within the limits of India excluding the
State of Jammu and Kashmir] or established beyond such limits] by [the Central Government]
● of [any] suit or proceedings which is not collusive ; and
● in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question,

● the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or
proceeding
● so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be
made therein,

● except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.
● [Explanation.— For the purposes of this section,
● the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed
● to commence from
○ the date of the presentation of the plaint or
○ the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and

● to continue
○ until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or
discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or
○ has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution
thereof by any law for the time being in force.
 Lis Pendens
Govind Pillai Gopala Pillai v. Aiyappan Krishnan, 1975 Ker 10
● Lis Pendens - Jurisdiction, Power, or Control that courts have, during the pendency of an action over the
property involved therein.

● Lis Pendens literally means ‘litigation pending’ or ‘pending suit’ and is drawn from the concept based on
the maxim “Pendente lite nihil innovature” which means that nothing new must be introduced while a
litigation or suit is pending.
● This Doctrine states that the Transfer of property shall be restricted when there is a litigation pending on
the title or any rights that arise directly thereof involving an immovable property.

● The suit commences the moment a complaint is presented or the day of commencement of proceedings in
the appropriate Court and shall be terminated by Order of the Court.
● The Court may, however, permit any party to the suit to transfer the property on such terms which it may
think fit and proper to impose.

● The sale of immovable property can take place through private negotiations, but the said Transfer will
be subservient to the verdict of the competent Court.
● The doctrine of Lis Pendens has its origin by Lord Justice Turner in
● Bellamy Vs. Sabine, 1857
● Where the Court observed the following:
● “This is a doctrine common to both law and equity courts, on the grounds that, if
alienation pendente lite was allowed to prevail, it would simply not be possible for any
action or suit to be resolved successfully.
● In any case, the Plaintiff will be responsible for the Defendant who alienated the property
before the judgment or the decree and must be obliged, according to the same course of
action, to initiate these proceedings de novo.”

● The crux is that when litigation is pending in respect of any property, none of two shall
be permitted to transfer the same except with permission of court.
● Anybody buying it would get the title which will be subject to court’s decision in suit that is
pending. He may or may not be impleaded. He is to honor the verdict.
 BELLAMY VS. SABINE, 1857
● The facts of the above case were the following:

○ A person, Mr X, sold an immovable property to Mr A.

○ Mr X’s son, Mr Z, who was the heir of Mr. X, sued Mr A in a competent court to declare
the sale as void.

○ However, while this litigation was pending, Mr. A sold the property to Mr. B, who did
not take notice of the suit.
○ The Court held that the son Mr. Z was entitled to the property and the sale was set
aside.

○ Mr. B who purchased the property from Mr. A does not get any title as he purchased
the property from someone who did not have the title and therefore cannot convey it.
● Therefore, evolving the principles of common law and Section 52 of The Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, was born and is as follows:
○ When there is an ongoing lawsuit in any Court having authority within the limits of India,
○ a suit or proceeding in which any right to immovable property is precisely in question,
○ the property cannot be conveyed by any party to the lawsuit which can influence the rights of
any other party thereto under any order which may be rendered therein,
○ unless under the jurisdiction of the Court and on such conditions as it may enforce.

● Kachhi Properties, Satara v. Ganapatrao Shankarrao Kadam, AIR 2011 (Bom)

Adequate protection from transfer pendente lite – In light of such protective provision neither
party is required to seek injunction – Such will be superfluous and would normally be denied
unless plaintiff demonstrate the rule of lis pendens is inadequate to protect his interest.
● Pravin Kumar v Baljinder Kaur (2010) P & H 40
Section 52 is based on the principle that the person purchasing the property from judgement
debtor during the pendency of suit has no independent right to property to resist, obstruct or
object execution of a decree.

● Govind Pillai v. Aiyyapa, AIR 1957

○ OBSERVATIONS :
■ According to some authorities – a pending suit must be regarded as notice to the
entire world
■ Other authorities – it is in favor of public policy to prohibit the litigant from disposing
any property that will prevent the execution of court decree.
 CONDITIONS FOR APPLICABILITY OF THE
DOCTRINE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 52
1. A suit or proceeding is pending.
2. The above suit is brought to a competent court within the jurisdiction.
3. The right to the title of an immovable property is directly in question.
4. The suit must not be collusive.
5. The suit should directly affect the rights of the other party.
6. The property in question is being transferred by either party.

● Some examples for Non-Applicability:

○ This does not apply to a private sale by a creditor who holds the right to dispose of the property that is mortgaged to it even when the
borrower has a redemption suit pending.
○ The Doctrine also does not apply when the property is not described correctly, making it unidentifiable.
○ In a maintenance suit, where the property is mentioned only so that maintenance payments can be determined transparently; the Doctrine
does not apply when a right to the said immovable property is not directly in question and alienations are thereby permitted.
○ The Doctrine fails to apply when a Court orders restoration of immovable property under the Civil Procedure Code, Order 21, Rule 63.
 STATE AMENDMENT
● What Section 52 postulates is that:
○ (i) A suit or proceeding must be pending;
○ (ii) The suit or proceeding must not be collusive;
○ (iii) A right to immovable property must be directly and specifically in question; and
○ (iv) A notice of the pendency of the suit or proceeding must be registered under Section 18
of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
(this last requirement being the amendment applicable to the State of Maharashtra).
 Section 53 in The Transfer of

FRAUDULENT TRANSFER Property Act, 1882

 SECTION 53 IN THE TRANSFER OF
PROPERTY ACT, 1882
● 53. Fraudulent transfer.—
● (1) Every transfer of immoveable property made with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of
the transferor shall be voidable at the option of any creditor so defeated or delayed.
○ Nothing in this sub-section shall impair the rights of a transferee in good faith and for consideration.
○ Nothing in this sub-section shall affect any law for the time being in force relating to insolvency.
A suit instituted by a creditor (which term includes a decree-holder whether he has or has not applied for execution of his
decree) to avoid a transfer on the ground that it has been made with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of the
transferor shall be instituted on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all the creditors.

● (2) Every transfer of immoveable property made without consideration with intent to defraud a
subsequent transferee shall be voidable at the option of such transferee.
○ For the purposes of this sub-section, no transfer made without consideration shall be deemed to have been made with
intent to defraud by reason only that a subsequent transfer for consideration was made.
PART Section 53A in The Transfer of
PERFORMANCE Property Act, 1882
 SECTION 53A IN THE TRANSFER OF
PROPERTY ACT, 1882
● 53A. Part performance.—

● Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration

● any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf
● from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty,
(WRITTEN CONTRACT)

● and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part
thereof, or
● the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and
has done some act in furtherance of the contract,
(DELIVERY OF POSSESSION)

● and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract,
(WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM)
● then,
○ notwithstanding that where there is an instrument of transfer,
○ that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time
being in force,
○ the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the
transferee and persons claiming under him
○ any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession,
○ other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract.
(TRANSFEROR SHALL BE DEBARRED)

● Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration
who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof.
(RIGHT OF BONAFIDE TRANSFEREE WITHOUT NOTICE)
 UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES:
● Doctrine of Part Performance is an equitable doctrine and it is incorporated to prevent fraud
and from taking illegal advantage on account of non-registration of the document.

● Doctrine of Part Performance protect transferees, and allow them to retain property, who
after executing an incomplete instrument fails to complete the instrument in manner
provided by law, without there being any fault on part of transferee. (willing to perform)

● This Doctrine is based on the maxim, Equity look at as it is done which ought to have been done.
 INGREDIENTS OF THE SECTION 53-A
● Bombay High Court in Kamalabai Laxman Pathak v. Onkar Parsharam Patil, has given emphasis on the
ingredients of the Section 53-A which are as follows:

● Contract for Transfer of immovable property.

For the application of this section, the first condition is that there must be a contract and the contract must be transfer of immovable
property for value.
○ a) Written contract:
The contract must be written. Section 53 –A is not applicable if the contract for transfer is oral.
In V.R. Sudhakara Rao v. T.V. Kameswari, it was held that the benefit of section 53-A is not available to a person who is in
possession of property based on oral agreement of sale. Writing alone is not sufficient. The contract must also be duly executed.
That is to say, it should be signed by the transferor or by any other person on his behalf.
○ b) Valid Contract
It may be noted that Section 53-A is applicable only where contract for the transfer is valid in all respects. It must be an
agreement enforceable by law under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
○ c) Immovable property
This section is applicable only in case of transfer of immovable property. It does not apply to an agreement for the transfer of
movable property even though supported with consideration.
The defense of Part Performance is not available in respect of possession of movables. (Hameed v. Jayabharat Credit &
Investment Co. Ltd and Ors).
● Transfer for consideration.
The written contract must be for the transfer of an immovable property for consideration. The written
contract on the basis of which the property has been possessed, must clearly suggest the transfer of
property.
If the document is ambiguous or confusing, this section cannot be made applicable.

It is one of the necessary ingredients of section 53-A that the terms of written contract must be
ascertainable with reasonable certainty.
(Hamida v. Humer and Ors.)

○ Only include “transfer of Interest”

○ with consideration
(excludes gifts)
● Possession in furtherance of Contract.
The Transferee has taken possession or continues possession in part performance of the contract or, has done some act in
furtherance of the contract. (A.M.A Sultan (deceased by LRs) and Ors. v. Seydu Zohra Beevi).

Some Act in furtherance of the contract.

Taking possession is not only the method of part performance of contract. If the transferee is already in possession of
the property then, after the contract of transfer, he has to do some further act in part performance of the contract
(Nathulal v. Phoolchand).

● There should be some real nexus between the contract and the act done in the pursuance of the
contract.
● For example – payment of reduced rent after renewal of lease, Taking electricity connections or
making some improvements etc.
● Transferee is willing to perform his part of contract.
Section 53-A is based on the principle of Equity. Equity says that one who seeks equity must
do equity.
Therefore, where a person claims protection of his possession over a land under section 53-A,
his own conduct must be equitable and just.

It is an essential condition for the applicability of this section that the transferee must be willing
to perform his part of contract.
(Sardar Govindrao Mahadik and Anr. vs. Devi Sahai and Ors Govind).

● Unconditional willingness to perform.

● ILLUSTRATION :

● A contract to transfer his immovable property to B by way of sale and put B in possession of
the property before a regular Sale-Deed is executed.
● The contract is said to be partly performed and if later on A refuses to execute regular
document of sale and files a suit for eviction against B treating B as trespasser.

● Then,
● B can resist A’s claim on the ground that the contract of transfer in his favour has partly
been performed and that A should not be allowed to go back upon his own word.
● Plea of Part performance
○ Ram Kumar Agarwal v. Thawar Das, (1999)
■ For the first time at second stage of appeal

● Right of Bona Fide Transferee for consideration without notice (Proviso)

○ Hemraj v. Rustomji, AIR 1953

● Distinction between English & Indian Law

○ Foxcroft v. Lyster (1703) 2 Vern 456 - English equitable doctrine laid down by “lord Redesdale”
against conscience to suffer the party who has extended money on faith of parole agreement to be treated as trespasser and other party enjoy the
advantage of money laid out

○ Only written contract

○ Only to retain possession not to claim possession (Only to defend- Passive right)
● Section 17(1)(f) of Registration Act The documents of contracts regarding transfer of any immovable property for
consideration for the purpose of section 53 A of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 that has been executed on or after the
inception of Registration and Other Related Laws Amendment Act, 2001.
○ (Ins. by Act 48 of 2001, s. 3 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001).

High Court of Delhi, consisting Justice Subramonium Prasad in the case of

Joginder Tuli vs. State NCT of Delhi & Ors. [W.P.(CRL) 1006/2020] on 17.01.2022

● In order to get benefits of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the document relied upon must be a registered
document: High Court of Delhi
● The High Court of Delhi held that in order to give benefits of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the document relied
upon must be a registered document. Any unregistered document cannot be looked into by the court and cannot be relied upon
on or taken into evidence in view of Section 17(1A) read with Section 49 of the Registration Act. Thus, benefit of Section 53A
could have been given to the respondent, if and only if the alleged Agreement to Sell cum receipt satisfied the provisions of
Section 17(1) A of the Registration Act.
● Had the petitioner been in lawful possession, he definitely would have filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act
within six months.
● The Court stated that the present petition looked like an attempt by the petitioner to get the possession of the property and to
get over the limitation for filing the suit. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed with the above observations along with
pending applications.
 The Document must be registered:
● 24th Sep 2001
● Sec 49 Reg Act 1908

● Pre- 1929

● Arun Kumar Tandon v. Akash Telecom Pvt Ltd (2010)

● Sale Deed & Agreement to sell

TRANSFER BY OSTENSIBLE OWNER Section 41
 TRANSFER BY OSTENSIBL OWNER
41. Transfer by ostensible owner.— Where, with the consent, express or implied, of the
persons interested in immoveable property, a person is the ostensible owner of such property
and transfers the same for consideration, the transfer shall not be voidable on the ground
that the transferor was not authorised to make it.

(Transfer by Ostensible owner - Valid)

Provided that the transferee, after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had
power to make the transfer, has acted in good faith.
(In case of - Bona-fide Transferee)
 WHO IS AN OSTENSIBLE OWNER ?
● A person who has all indicta of ownership without being the real owner.
● May have :
■ Possession
■ Enjoyment
■ Name entered on all the legal Documents

● Even then he may not be the real owner.

● Such situation may arise where for some reason a person purchases property in
the name of another person. Where the person purchases the property in the
name of another person it is known as benami transaction.

● Benamidar (Ostensible Owner) – On whose name property is purchased.

● Section 2 in THE BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1988

● 2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

○ (a) “Benami transaction” means any transaction in which property is transferred to one
person for a consideration paid or provided by another person.
 WHETHER THE PERSON IS
OSTENSIBLE OWNER OR NOT ?
● Jayadayal Poddar v. Bibi Hazara
○ Source of purchase money (who paid price)
○ Nature of Possession (who was in possession)
○ Motive of giving benami colour to transaction (Why in name of other)
○ Relationship between parties
○ Conduct of the parties in dealing with the property (who used to take care)
○ Custody of title-deed

Raj Vallabh v. Haripad AIR 1985 Cal 2.

The burdon of proof that the transaction is benami and that the transferee is ostensible owner lies on the person who
claims who is the real owner.

Kanulal v. P. Sahu
Section 41 of TPA is an equitable remedy to a bonafide purchaser. (Exception to the general rule ; Nemo dat quod non
habet)
 WHO CAN OR CAN NOT BE
OSTENSIBLE OWNER
● The manager, licensee, servants, agent, trustee, donor in possession or mahant etc can not be ostensible owner.

● Girindra Nath Mukherjeee v. Soumen Mukherjee AIR 1988

Father purchased property in the name of minor sons.

● Muhanmmad Sulaiman v. Sakina Bibi, MR (1922)

Entrusted with temporary control for some specific purpose
Professed Agent or guardian of minor’s propety
Or any other capacity of fiduciary nature (For example – Manager ; even though his name is recorded as the real owner in the municipal records.

● Thakur Krishna v. Kanhayalal AIR 1961

● Basudev Gir v. Jugraj Prasad (1948)
○ Karta of a joint hindu Family
○ Trustee or Manager of an idol
 PRINCIPLES
● Doctrine of Holding Out
○ Section 41 is read with Benami Transaction (Prohibition of Right to Recover property) Act, 1988. – The act takes
away the right to the real owner to recover property held benami (As per the act, no suit, claim or action to enforce
any right in respect of any property held benami against a person in whose name the property is held.

○ Mt. Gulam Fatima v. Mt Gopal Devi

The principle is that if two innocent persons or equally guilty and if law has to make its choice as whom to penalize, the
law whose indiscretion has enabled the fraud (Who has created or could have prevented the opportunity of fraud).

● Equitable Estoppel Rule (Doctrine of Estoppel)

○ Swami Nath v. Krishna
When the real owner allows the ostensible owner to hold himself out as the owner of property as against the true
owner, and third party purchases the property from the apparent owner in belief that he was the real owner, the
real owner will be estopped from recovering upon his secret title.

● Principle of Natural Equity

Ram Kumar V. McQueen (1872)
○ Ram Kumar V. McQueen (1872)
Facts :
McDonald purchased land in name of banno Biwi (His wife). (Benami Transaction)
Ram Dhan Kundoo F/O Ram Kumar purchased this land from Banno Biwi for some consideration which was fully paid.
Ram Dhan Kundoo dies in 1834.
The suit was filed on ground that Banno Biwi was only benamidar and transfer was not valid.
The principle contained in section 41 was laid down and suit was dismissed.

Held :
A person shall not be permitted to represent a state of fact at one time, and afterwards when such representations
has induced another to change his position, seek to show that as such his representation was erroneous. It is a doctrine
too well established now to be shaken, and whether it is accurately called “estoppel” or not, the principle is perfectly
intelligible.
 ESSENTIAL CONDITION FOR
APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 41
1. Transferor is the ostensible owner of property (with express or implied consent of the real owner).
1. The real owner is not responsible, unless the apparent ownership of transfer has been permitted or created
by him.
2. Nirus Purve v. Mt. tetri Pasin (1916)
3. Annoda Mohan v. Nilphamari (1922)

2. Transfer for consideration.

3. Transferee has acted in good faith.

4. Transferee has exercised reasonable care and after an enquiry purchased the property.
 SECTION 42 IN THE TRANSFER OF
PROPERTY ACT, 1882
● 42. Transfer by person having authority to revoke former transfer.—
● Where a person transfers any immoveable property, reserving power to revoke the transfer, and
subsequently transfers the property for consideration to another transferee, such transfer operates in
favour of such transferee (subject to any condition attached to the exercise of the power) as a revocation
of the former transfer to the extent of the power.
○ Illustration : A lets a house to B, and reserves power to revoke the lease if, in the opinion of a specified surveyor, B should
make a use of it detrimental to its value. Afterwards A, thinking that such a use has been made, lets the house to C.
● This operates as a revocation of B’s lease subject to the opinion of the surveyor as to B’s use of the house
having been detrimental to its value.

● Principle : If a person has a right to transfer property, after exercising the right to revoke previous
transfer, a transfer of such property by him will imply exercise of right of revocation by him. (though
subjected to condition)
 Section 35. Election: Election
DOCTRINE OF ELECTION when necessary
 DOCTRINE OF ELECTION –
MEANING
● Doctrine of Election – Based on Principle of Equity
● Election means choosing between two inconsistent or alternative rights. Under any instrument if two rights are conferred on a
person in such a manner that one right is in lieu of the other, he is bound to elect (choose) only one of them.

● Beepathuma v. S.V. Kadambolithaya, AIR 1956 SC 241

○ A person can not take under and against the same instrument.

● Codrington v. Lindsay (1873)

○ “No one can approbate or reprobate at the same time”.
○ In other words, Where a person takes some benefit under a deed or instrument, he must also bear its burdon .”

● Cooper v. Cooper (1874)

○ The doctrine of election is based on equity and is applicable on all kinds of instruments whether testamentary or non-testamentary relating to movable
property or immovable property.
 ELECTION: ELECTION WHEN
NECESSARY
● When Transferor professes to transfer property not his own –
● Section 35. Election: Election when necessary.—
○ Where a person professes to transfer property which he has no right to transfer,
○ and as part of the same transaction
○ confers any benefit on the owner of the property,

Owner’s duty to elect –

○ such owner must elect either to confirm such transfer or to dissent from it;
○ and in the latter case he shall relinquish the benefit so conferred, and the benefit so relinquished shall revert to the
transferor or his representative as if it had not been disposed of,
 Rights of disappointed Transferee (When election is against transfer) –

subject nevertheless,
(i) where the transfer is gratuitous, and the transferor has, before the election, died or otherwise become
incapable of making a fresh transfer,
(ii) and in all cases where the transfer is for consideration,
○ to the charge of making good to the disappointed transferee the amount or value of the property
attempted to be transferred to him.
Illustrations
○ The farm of Sultanpur is the property of C and worth Rs. 800.
○ A by an instrument of gift professes to transfer it to B, giving by the same instrument Rs. 1,000 to C.
○ C elects to retain the farm. He forfeits the gift of Rs. 1,000.
○ In the same case, A dies before the election. His representative must out of the Rs. 1,000 pay Rs. 800 to B.
● Knowledge of the fact that Whether transferor had the authority to transfer property or not is
immaterial.
○ The rule in the first paragraph of this section applies whether the transferor does or does not believe that which he
professes to transfer to be his own.

● The occasion of election arises only where a benefit is directly conferred on the owner of the
property.
○ A person taking no benefit directly under a transaction, but deriving a benefit under it indirectly, need not elect.
Vallamai v. Naggappa AIR 1967

● Duty to elect arises only when the person acts in one and the same capacity.
○ A person who in his one capacity takes a benefit under the transaction may in another dissent therefrom .
Deputy Commissionaer v. Ram Swaroop (1917)
 EXCEPTION TO THE LAST PRECEDING
FOUR RULES.—
● Part of same Transaction (Only when the ‘transfer’ and ‘benefits’ are interdependent and
inseparable) ; There is no duty to elect if the benefits are not in lieu of transfer –
● Where a particular benefit is expressed to be conferred on the owner of the property which the
transferor professes to transfer,
● and such benefit is expressed to be in lieu of that property, if such owner claim the property, he
must relinquish the particular benefit,
● but he is not bound to relinquish any other benefit conferred upon him by the same
transaction.
 MODE OF ELECTION
● Express Election

● Implied Election
● Being Aware of his duty to elect and having full knowledge of circumstances accepts the benefits.
● Acceptance of the benefit by the person on whom it is conferred constitutes an election by him to confirm the transfer, if he is
aware of his duty to elect and of those circumstances which would influence the judgment of a reasonable man in making
an election, or if he waives enquiry into the circumstances.
● Presumption that he has knowingly chosen to accept the benefit –
○ Such knowledge or waiver shall, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be presumed, if the person on whom the benefit
has been conferred has enjoyed it for two years without doing any act to express dissent.
○ Such knowledge of waiver may be inferred from any act of his which renders it impossible to place the persons interested
in the property professed to be transferred in the same condition as if such act had not been done.
■ Illustration A transfers to B an estate to which C is entitled, and as part of the same transaction gives C a coal-mine. C
takes possession of the mine and exhausts it. He has thereby confirmed the transfer of the estate to B.
● Requisition to Elect –
● If he does not within one year after the date of the transfer signify to the
transferor or his representatives his intention to confirm or to dissent from the
transfer, the transferor or his representative may, upon the expiration of that
period, require him to make his election;
● and, if he does not comply with such requisition within a reasonable time after
he has received it, he shall be deemed to have elected to confirm the
transfer.

● Suspension Of Election –
● In case of disability, the election shall be postponed until the disability ceases,
or until the election is made by some competent authority.
 KHYATI NAYAK
Assistant Professor (Law)
THANK YOU KPMSOL, NMIMS, MUMBAI
Email : [email protected]