KSLU Solved Question Papers
Property Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 6
2016 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 6 Property Law 2016 Dec Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2016 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2016 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2016 Dec examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 13 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1State the rule against perpetuity as provided in the Transfer of Property Act.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: what a perpetuity is and why the law forbids it; the text of section 14 and its elements; how the perpetuity period is measured, with valid and void examples; the link with section 13 and the effect of failure under sections 15 and 16; the comparison with the English rule; the exceptions (public benefit under section 18, personal contracts in Rambaran Prosad and R. Kempraj, vested interests, Government grants in State of U.P. v. Zahoor Ahmad); the separate rule on accumulation in section 17.
What a perpetuity is
A perpetuity is a disposition that makes property inalienable, or that postpones the vesting of an interest for an indefinite or very long time. An owner may try to control his property long after his death by giving it to persons who may come into existence generations later. While such an interest is uncertain, nobody can deal with the property freely. Land is withdrawn from commerce and cannot be improved, sold or mortgaged.
The rule against perpetuity prevents this. It does not forbid future interests altogether. It only fixes a limit of time within which a future interest must vest. An interest that may vest beyond that limit is void from the start.
Section 14
Section 14 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 provides: "No transfer of property can operate to create an interest which is to take effect after the lifetime of one or more persons living at the date of such transfer, and the minority of some person who shall be in existence at the expiration of that period, and to whom, if he attains full age, the interest created is to belong."
Its elements are these.
- A transfer of property. The section applies to transfers between living persons. Wills are governed by the like rule in the Indian Succession Act 1925.
- An interest to take effect in the future. The rule concerns the vesting of interests, not their enjoyment.
- The perpetuity period. The interest must vest within the lifetime of one or more persons living at the date of the transfer. To that is added the minority of a person in existence when those lives end.
- The ultimate beneficiary. The extra period is the minority of the very person to whom the interest is to belong if he attains full age.
How the period is measured
The period has two parts. The first part is one or more lives in being at the date of the transfer. These may be any persons living then, usually the persons who take the prior life interests. The second part is the minority of the ultimate beneficiary, who must be in existence when the last of those lives ends. Majority is attained at eighteen.
The examples show the working.
- Valid. Property is transferred to Ravi for life and then to Ravi's unborn son absolutely when he attains eighteen. Ravi is a life in being. His son will be born before Ravi dies, so he is in existence when the life ends. His interest vests at eighteen, within his minority. The transfer is good.
- Void. Property is transferred to Ravi for life and then to Ravi's unborn son when he attains twenty-five. The son's interest may vest seven years after his minority ends. That is beyond the period, so the interest is void.
- Void. Property is transferred to Ravi for life, then to his unborn son for life, then to that son's unborn son. The grandson's interest may vest after the life of a person who was not living at the date of the transfer. It is void under section 14, and the son's life interest is void under section 13.
Sections 13, 15 and 16
Section 14 works with section 13. An interest for an unborn person must be subject to a prior interest and must carry the whole remaining interest. Section 14 then limits how far ahead its vesting may lie.
Section 15 saves part of a class gift. Where an interest for a class fails under section 13 or 14 for some members only, it fails "in regard to those persons only and not in regard to the whole class". Section 16 deals with an interest that fails under section 13 or 14. Any interest in the same transaction intended to take effect after or upon its failure also fails.
T. Subramania Nadar v. T. Varadharajan, AIR 2003 Mad 364, decided by the Madras High Court on 16 April 2003, shows a deed that passed both tests. A settlement of 26 March 1949 benefited grandsons of the settlor not yet born. The High Court held that the deed gave them the whole remaining interest and that vesting fell within the period. The grandsons born later therefore took as tenants in common with the appellant.
Comparison with the English rule
| Point | English common law rule | Section 14 |
|---|---|---|
| Period | Lives in being plus twenty-one years | Lives in being plus the minority of the ultimate beneficiary |
| Extra period | A fixed twenty-one years, whoever is a minor | Only the actual minority of the person who is to take |
| Unborn persons | Successive life estates to unborn persons possible within the period | Section 13 forbids a mere life estate to an unborn person |
| Basis | Judge-made | Statutory |
The Indian rule is therefore stricter. The extra period is not a fixed number of years but only the minority of the person to whom the interest is to belong.
Exceptions and cases outside the rule
1. Transfers for the benefit of the public. Section 18 says the restrictions in sections 14, 16 and 17 "shall not apply in the case of a transfer of property for the benefit of the public in the advancement of religion, knowledge, commerce, health, safety, or any other object beneficial to mankind". A permanent endowment for a hospital or a school is therefore valid.
2. Personal contracts that create no interest. Rambaran Prosad v. Ram Mohit Hazra, AIR 1967 SC 744, decided on 6 September 1966, concerned a partition award of 1941 between two brothers in Calcutta. It contained a covenant that before selling to an outsider each would offer his block to the other. In 1952 a block was sold to a stranger without any offer. The buyer argued that a pre-emption covenant unlimited in time was void for perpetuity.
The Supreme Court read section 14 with section 54, under which a contract for sale "does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property". The rule against perpetuity applies to interests in property, not to personal contracts. A covenant of pre-emption creates no interest in land, so it is not void even though no time limit is fixed.
R. Kempraj v. Barton Son and Co., AIR 1970 SC 1872, decided on 29 August 1969, applied the same reasoning to a Bangalore lease. A lease of 1951 for ten years gave the lessee an option to renew for further ten-year periods. When the lessor refused to renew, the lessee sued. The Supreme Court held that section 14 applies only to a transfer of property. The renewal covenant did not itself transfer any interest, so "no interest in property has been created of the nature contemplated by that provision". The lessee succeeded.
3. Vested interests. The rule strikes only at interests whose vesting is too remote. A vested interest whose enjoyment alone is postponed is outside it.
4. Government grants. State of U.P. v. Zahoor Ahmad, AIR 1973 SC 2520, was decided on 8 August 1973. The Supreme Court observed that for a grant under the Government Grants Act, section 14 "will not apply by reason of the provisions in the Government Grants Act".
Accumulation of income: a separate rule
Section 17 deals with a related abuse, the direction to accumulate income. A direction to accumulate beyond the longer of the transferor's life or eighteen years from the transfer is void as to the excess. Directions for paying debts, providing portions for children, or preserving the property are saved.
The effect of breach
An interest that offends section 14 is void from the date of the transfer. It does not matter that events later turn out so that it would have vested in time. The rule looks at what might happen, not at what does happen. Interests dependent on the void interest fail under section 16, but a prior valid interest, such as a life estate, stands.
Conclusion. Section 14 forbids any transfer creating an interest that may vest later than the lives of persons living at the transfer. Only the minority of the person who is to take may be added. A stricter rule than the English, it keeps property free from indefinite control and works with section 13 on unborn persons. It does not touch transfers for public benefit under section 18 or vested interests. Nor does it reach personal contracts that create no interest in land. The pre-emption covenant in Rambaran Prosad and the renewal option in R. Kempraj were both upheld.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 6 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.