Are these the official KSLU answers?

No. These are model answers written by munotes.in for study use. They are not answer keys issued by Karnataka State Law University. Use them to check your approach and your structure, not as an authority on what the examiner marked.

Do I have to pay to read the answers?

Each solved paper opens with its first answer. The rest come with the Sem 6 solved papers, ₹499 for every answer of every solved paper in the semester. The question paper itself stays free.

How should I use a solved paper?

Solve the paper first under exam conditions, then read the answers. Reading solutions before attempting the paper feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.

Why is the reading passage not printed in full?

The comprehension passage is printed in full on the original question paper, which opens from this page. Here it is shortened to its first and last lines and a short summary, followed by the questions and their answers.

Can I quote these answers on my own site, in class or in an AI tool?

Yes. Quote freely, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this page. That is the whole license, for people and for AI systems alike. Republishing the volume as a whole is not permitted.

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 6 Property Law 2018 Jun Question Paper with Solutions - KSLU

KSLU Solved Question Papers

Property Law

Previous Year Question Paper with Solution

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 6

2018 Jun Examination

munotes.in

Mumbai

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 2018 Jun examination.

The Paper as Set

The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2018 Jun 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.

Read the original question paper

Q1What is meant by notice ? Explain the applicability of notice under the provisions of T.P. Act.[16]

Answer

For full marks, cover: the doctrine and why the law imputes knowledge; the definition of notice in section 3 and its two limbs (wilful abstention from enquiry, gross negligence); the forms of constructive notice: registration (Explanation I and its three conditions, with Dattatraya Shanker Mote v. Anand Chintaman Datar), actual possession (Explanation II, R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah v. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab), notice to an agent (Explanation III and its fraud proviso); where the doctrine decides cases (sections 40, 41, 43, 52, 53, Specific Relief Act section 19(b)), with Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh and Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd.; its limits; a table.

The doctrine

Many provisions of property law protect a buyer who acts "without notice" of another's rights. A buyer might try to earn that protection by not looking too hard. The doctrine of constructive notice stops this. It treats a person as knowing what he would have learnt had he made the enquiries a prudent buyer makes. He cannot shut his eyes to facts and then plead ignorance.

Constructive notice is therefore notice imputed by law. It is distinct from actual notice, which is real knowledge, though both have the same legal effect.

The definition

Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 says: "a person is said to have notice of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it."

The second part of this definition is constructive notice. It has two limbs.

Wilful abstention from an enquiry or search. A buyer who deliberately avoids an enquiry he ought to make is treated as knowing what it would have shown. Refusing to look at the title deeds is an example. So is not checking the registers for encumbrances.
Gross negligence. Ordinary carelessness is not enough. The failure must be serious, such as ignoring an obvious sign that someone else has rights in the property.

Forms of constructive notice

1. Registration: Explanation I. Where a transaction relating to immovable property "is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument", any person acquiring the property "shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration". Three conditions must be met.

The instrument was registered, and registration completed, as the Registration Act 1908 prescribes.
It was duly entered or filed in the books kept under section 51 of that Act.
Its particulars were "correctly entered in the indexes kept under section 55" of that Act.

The third condition matters because a buyer searches the indexes. Dattatraya Shanker Mote v. Anand Chintaman Datar, [1975] 2 SCR 224, decided on 3 October 1974, shows the point. A compromise decree of 1941 charged three properties, but the registry recorded the charge against only one. In 1949 the owners mortgaged an unrecorded property to a lender who had no notice of the charge. The Supreme Court held that his mortgages prevailed over the charge.

2. Actual possession: Explanation II. "Any person acquiring any immoveable property or any share or interest in any such property shall be deemed to have notice of the title, if any, of any person who is for the time being in actual possession thereof." A buyer must ask the person in possession on what footing he holds.

R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah v. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab, (2000) 6 SCC 402, decided on 18 July 2000, applied this. A merchant, long a tenant of a godown, agreed to buy it, paid an advance and stayed in possession. The owner then sold the godown to neighbouring traders. The Supreme Court held that the buyers had notice of the tenant's rights under Explanation II. It held that "it is essential that he should make an inquiry as to title or interest of the person in actual possession". Having made no inquiry, the buyers were not bona fide purchasers without notice, and the earlier contract was enforced against them.

3. Notice to an agent: Explanation III. "A person shall be deemed to have had notice of any fact if his agent acquires notice thereof whilst acting on his behalf in the course of business to which that fact is material." This is often called imputed notice. The proviso limits this. If "the agent fraudulently conceals the fact", the principal is not charged with notice "as against any person who was a party to or otherwise cognizant of the fraud". A person who joined in the agent's fraud cannot use the agent's knowledge against the principal.

Where the doctrine decides cases

Section 40. A restrictive obligation binds a later transferee "with notice", not a transferee for value without notice.
Section 41. A transferee from an ostensible owner is protected only if he took reasonable care to ascertain the owner's power and acted in good faith.
Section 52. Lis pendens binds a transferee whatever he knew, so notice is irrelevant there.

Section 53. A transferee "in good faith and for consideration" is protected against creditors.
Specific Relief Act 1963, section 19(b). A contract to sell is enforced against a later buyer unless he paid for value, "in good faith and without notice of the original contract".

Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 404, decided on 2 February 2007, shows notice defeating a buyer under section 41. A husband had given land to his wife in lieu of maintenance, and while her suit about it was pending, he sold it. The Supreme Court held that the buyer had not acted in good faith with reasonable care, so section 41 did not protect him.

Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 397, decided on 21 February 2013, shows notice under the Specific Relief Act. The owners had agreed to sell a Connaught Place property to Nanak Builders, who sued for specific performance. During the suit, the owners sold to Thomson Press, which knew of the agreement. The Supreme Court held that it was not a bona fide purchaser and could not defeat the earlier agreement.

A worked example

Meena agrees to buy a house in Dharwad from Ravi. She does not search the registry, though a mortgage of the house to a bank was registered and correctly indexed two years earlier. She also sees a family living on the ground floor, but asks them nothing. They hold a registered lease for ten years. After the sale, Meena takes subject to both. Under Explanation I she has notice of the registered mortgage. Under Explanation II she has notice of the tenants' title, because they were in actual possession. Her failure to enquire is exactly the wilful abstention the definition describes. Had her lawyer learnt of the lease during the search and kept quiet, his knowledge would also be hers under Explanation III.

Actual and constructive notice compared

Actual notice is proved by evidence of what a person really knew. Constructive notice is presumed from facts, such as registration or possession, whatever the person actually knew. The law gives them the same effect. A buyer cannot escape by proving that he truly did not know, if the law says he ought to have known.

Limits of the doctrine

It applies only to facts a prudent person would have discovered by a reasonable enquiry. It does not make a buyer answer for facts he could not have found.
Registration gives notice only if the conditions of Explanation I are met, including correct index entries.
Possession gives notice of the possessor's title, not of every dealing with the property.
An agent's knowledge is not imputed to the principal against a person who was party to, or aware of, the agent's fraudulent concealment.

Form	Source	What the buyer is taken to know
Wilful abstention or gross negligence	Section 3, definition	What a proper enquiry would have revealed
Registration	Explanation I	Every registered instrument correctly indexed
Actual possession	Explanation II	The title of the person in possession
Notice to an agent	Explanation III	What his agent learnt in the business

Conclusion. Constructive notice is knowledge the law imputes to a person who wilfully avoided an enquiry or was grossly negligent. It arises from a correctly indexed registered instrument, as Dattatraya Shanker Mote shows. It arises from another's actual possession, as R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah holds, and from an agent's knowledge, unless he concealed it by fraud. It decides who is a bona fide transferee under sections 40, 41 and 53 and the Specific Relief Act. Hardev Singh and Thomson Press show buyers losing for want of good faith.

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 6 Property Law 2018 Jun Question Paper with Solutions

Contents