Mr. Mukherjee referred to Norton's On Deed and Prideaux's Forms and Presidence in Conveyancing. It is said in Norton's On Deed's that the right conferred in the premises cannot be abridged in the habendum. With regard to English Rules of conveyancing, in Barmanaya v. Kalicharan Singh, (1911) 15 Cal WN 393 (PC) the Privy Council observed "Rules of construction are rules designed to assist in ascertaining intention, and the applicability of many such rules depends upon the habits of thought and modes of expression prevalent among those to whose language they are applied. English rules of construction have grown up side by side with a very special law of property in a very artificial system of conveyancing and the success of those rules in giving effect to the real Intention of those whose language they are used to interpret depends not more upon their original fitness for that purpose than upon the facts that English documents of a formal kind are ordinarily framed with a knowledge of the very rules of construction which are afterwards applied to them. It is a very serious thing to use such rules in interpreting the instrument of Hindus, who view most transaction from a different point, think differently, and speak differently from Englishmen and who have never heard of the rules in question."
The Rules of English mode of Conveyancing cannot prevail over the conception of 'sale' inTransfer of Property Act.
Calcutta High Court
Sm. Manjusha Debi vs Sunil Chandra Mukherjee And Ors. on 21 March, 1972
Equivalent citations: AIR 1972 Cal 310
Bench: A K Mookerji
