The assurance of the relative rights and needs of progressive chosen ones of the equivalent or covering rights has been a difficult issue for the Courts. At the point when there are at least two contending fair interests, the evenhanded saying qui earlier est tempore potior est jure (he who is prior in time is more grounded in law) applies. This implies the first in time beats the others. Segment 48 of the Transfer of Property Act epitomizes this rule in enactment.
The Section is established upon the significant rule that no man can pass on a title than what he has.
The article investigates the law material if there should arise an occurrence of clashing rights made over a similar property, its premise, special cases, with legal translations and its application in present day times.
It is a guideline of regular equity that if rights are made for two people at various occasions, the person who has the bit of leeway in time ought to likewise have the preferred position in law. This standard, be that as it may, applies just to situations where the clashing values are generally equal.
Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is established upon the significant rule that no man can pass on a title than what he has. In the event that an individual has officially affected an exchange, he can't discredit from his give and manage the property free from the rights made under the previous exchange. Area 48 is an outright in its terms and does not contain any insurance or reservation for an ensuing transferee who has no learning of the earlier transfer.
Madras High Court in Duraiswami Reddi v. Angappa Reddi4 held that the earlier transferee would be qualified for implement his rights however his record is enrolled later and regardless of whether the consequent transferee went into exchanges true blue without information of the main exchange. It was held that this outcome was certain and was an immediate result of the consolidated activity of Section 47 of the Registration Act and Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is likewise seen that the privilege of need of the main transferee would be defers just if the later transferee sets up any instructive conditions like extortion, estoppels or gross carelessness.
Reference might be mentioned to the accompanying objective facts at page. 426. "Such a request, whenever permitted would prompt much misrepresentation. In the event that a later record enlisted before is to beat a prior archive enrolled later it would dependably be simple for the seller and the later buyer to go into an exchange inside the time given for enrollment of the previous report and get the new deed enlisted promptly and hence rout the buyer under the prior deed." This choice was followed in a later choice of the Madras High Court in Ramaswami Pillai v. Ramaswami Naicker,5 just as in the Bench choice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jagannatha Rao v. Raghavarao