Transfer of Property Act, 1882 · Chapter I: Preliminary
Section 3: Interpretation-clause
In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context,—
"immoveable property" does not include standing timber, growing crops or grass; "instrument", means a non-testamentary instrument;
["attested", in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary;]
"registered" means registered in [[any part of the territories] to which this Act extends] under the laws4 for the time being in force regulating the registration of documents;
"attached to the earth" means—
(a) rooted in the earth, as in the case of trees and shrubs;
(b) imbedded in the earth, as in the case of walls or buildings; or
(c) attached to what is so imbedded for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of that to which it is attached;
["actionable claim" means a claim to any debt, other than a debt secured by mortgage of immoveable property or by hypothecation or pledge of moveable property, or to any beneficial interest in moveable property not in the possession, either actual or constructive, of the claimant, which the Civil Courts recognise as affording grounds for relief, whether such debt or beneficial interest be existent, accuring, conditional or contingent;]
["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.
Explanation 1.—Where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration or, [where the property is not all situated in one sub-district, or where the registered instrument has been registered under sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), from the earliest date on which any memorandum of such registered instrument has been filed by any Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district any part of the property which is being acquired, or of the property wherein a share or interest is being acquired, is situated:]
Provided that—
(1) the instrument has been registered and its registration completed in the manner prescribed by the Indian. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) and the rules made thereunder,
(2) the instrument [or memorandum] has been duly entered or filed, as the case may be, in books kept under section 51 of that Act, and
(3) the particulars regarding the transaction to which the instrument relates have been correctly entered in the indexes kept under section 55 of that Act.
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.
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:
Provided that, if the agent fraudulently conceals the fact, the principal shall not be charged with notice thereof as against any person who was a party to or otherwise cognizant of the fraud.]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 3
-
Lipi Boilers Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad
Issue arose whether the value of the duty paid bought out items delivered directly at the buyer’s site is liable to be included in the value of the boiler cleared by the assessee from its factory in completely knocked…
-
K.S. Manjunath and Others v. Moorasavirappa @ Muttanna Chennappa
Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment whereby it allowed the appeals filed by the vendees and set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court, while granting the relief of specific…
-
Dharmrao Sharanappa Shabadi and Others v. Syeda Arifa Parveen
Whether the impugned judgments suffer from perversity and misreading of evidence, warranting re-appreciation of evidence under Article 136 of the Constitution of India; whether the High Court is correct in reversing the…
-
Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Suresh Chand and Anr.
I) Whether the impugned documents, i.e., Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Receipt of Consideration and the registered Will, allegedly entered into by K, father of the appellant/ defendant no.1 and…
-
Smt. Uma Devi and Ors. v. Sri. Anand Kumar and Ors.
Whether the High Court was correct in remanding the matter back to the trial court, when trial court had allowed the application of the defendants/appellants u/Or.7 r.11 CPC, and dismissed the suit for partition filed…
-
Union of India & Others v. Future Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Another Etc.
Matter pertains to the correctness of the judgments of the High Court setting aside various amendments made to the Finance Act, 1994; and whether sole distributor/purchaser of the lottery tickets is liable to pay…
-
Daliben Valjibhai & Ors. v. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai & Anr.
Whether a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed, filed within three years from the date of knowledge as alleged in the plaint, can be dismissed at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil…
-
Manjit Singh & Anr. v. Darshana Devi & Ors.
High Court held that the appellants-subsequent purchasers could not be said to be bona fide purchasers in accordance with Section 19 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting…
-
(Reliance Communications v. Commissioner of Service
Whether the mobile service providers who pay excise duties on various items for setting up their business more particularly for erection of mobile towers and peripherals like pre-fabricated buildings etc. can take the…
-
Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Ors. v. M/S Safari Retreats Private Ltd. & Ors.
Whether the definition of “plant and machinery” in the explanation appended to Section 17 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies to the expression “plant or machinery” used in clause (d) of sub-section…
-
Maharaj Singh & Ors. v. Karan Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.
Can the contention that the suit agreement was sham and bogus and not intended to be acted upon be allowed to be raised notwithstanding Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act; Was the suit agreement sham and bogus and…
-
Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd v. Hdfc Bank Ltd. & Anr.
Whether the documents executed by the borrower-appellant by which rents were made over to the lender-respondent constituted an assignment and thus fell outside the scope of an a sset and security freeze order made by…
- K. C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board &
- The Sub Registrar, Amudalavalasa & Anr. v. M/S
- Mrs. Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese Rep by Its Procurator Devssia’S Son Rev. Father Joseph Kappil
- G.T. Girish v. Y. Subba Raju (D) by Lrs and Another
- Seethakathi Trust Madras v. Krishnaveni
- Vaishno Devi Construction Rep. Thr. Sole Proprietor (D) Thr. Lrs & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Salim D. Agboatwala and Ors. v. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and Ors.
- Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Rattan Singh & Ors. v. Nirmal Gill & Ors. Etc.
- Raj Kumari and Others v. Surinder Pal Sharma
- M/S Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Through District Magistrate Ghaziabad & Anr.
- LIC of India v. Insure Policy Plus Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Pawan Kumar Gupta
- Mahila Ramkali Devi and Others v. Nandram (D) Thr. Lrs. and Others
- Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Solid & Correct Engineering Works & Ors.
- M/S. Residents Welfare Association, Noida v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- Al Champdany Industries Limited v. The Official Liquidator & Anr.
- Azhar Sultana v. B. Rajamani & Ors.
- Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria & Ors.
- M/S. Yasha Overseas v. Commissioner of Sales Tax & Ors.
- Babu Singh & Ors. v. Ram Sahai @ Ram Singh
- T. Vijendradas and Anr. v. M. Subramanian and Ors.
- Benga Behera and Anr. v. Braja Kishore Nanda and Ors.
- Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram and Ors.
- Janardhanam Prasad v. Ramdas
- M/S. Sunrise Associates v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
- M/S. T.T.G. Industries Ltd., Madras v. Collector of Central Excise, Raipur
- Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Assn. v. Union of India and Ors.
- Bhagat Ram and Anr. v. Suresh and Ors.
- M. Rangasamy v. Rengammal and Ors.
- Krishna Mohan Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.
- R.D. Goyal and Anr. v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
- N. Kamalam (Dead) and Anr. v. Ayyasamy and Anr.
- Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Anr.
- Ram Niwas (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Smt. Bano and Ors.
- R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah and Ors. v. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab (Dead) by Lrs.
- Bina Murlidhar Hemdev and Ors. v. Kanhaiyalal Lakram Hemdev and Ors.
- Brij Raj Singh (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. v. Sewak Ram and Anr.
- Nagulapati Lakshmamma v. Mupparaju Subbaiah
- Satish Kumar v. Zarif Ahmed and Ors.
- Vikas Sales Corporation and Anr. Etc. Etc. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Anr. Etc. Etc.
- Kashibai W/O Lachiram and Anr. v. Parwatibai W/O Lachiram and Anr.
- Santosh Jayaswal and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors.
- M/S Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors.