Introduction

The right to property possession requires certain applied privileges such as the right to have
title to the property, the right to enjoy the property, and the right to alienate it in accordance
with the laws. Ownership is a complex legal term that arose in Ancient Roman Law.
Ownership is denoted as Dominium, which means total right over an item, and Possession is
denoted as Possessio, which means only physical rights over such thing. Different jurists
have specified ownership in various ways, and it is generally agreed that the right to
ownership is a full or sole right that can be exercised over something. Austin defines
ownership as the right to use the land indefinitely, for an infinite period of time, and to
dispose of it without restriction. Ownership, according to Fredrick Pollock, is described as "a
full allocation of control of use and disposal."1
It is clear from jurisprudential standpoint that unrestricted disposition of property is an
important attribute, and it can be concluded that ownership of property bears with it several
basic rights, such as a right to have the title to the property, a right to own and enjoy it to the
exclusion of everyone else, and a right to alienate it without being dictated to, except in
compliance with a provision of law. An unconditional right to dispose of property means that
the owner may sell it for a consideration, donate it for religious or charitable purposes, gift it
to someone, lend it, or lease it.
Alienation
Alienation is defined as the willing and full transfer of property ownership from one party to
another. The right of alienation is regarded as an integral component of ownership. An
individual who owns property has the freedom to sell it for a monetary consideration or to
give it away for free as a gift or for charitable purposes. The property may even be leased or
mortgaged.2
Except with the support of the legislation, no one else can intervene with the owner's
authority or right or prescribe to him the manner of alienation should be, whether he can
alienate or not, or even what kind of use it should be placed to. In brief, this privilege to
alienation, which is one of the owner's fundamental privileges, cannot be encroached upon
unreasonably by someone through a private agreement. This general rule applies even though
there is an explicit contract to the contrary, and it forbids the transferor from restricting the
transferee's power of alienation until the interest in the property is transferred.
Restraint on Alienation
When property is owned by someone who is limited in his or her ability to move or dispose
of it, this is seen as a restraint on alienation. The constraint may be enforced as a condition of
the property being granted to the restrained party, or it may be enforced by a contract
between the restrained party and another, generally (but not always) the individual who
transferred the property to the restrained party.
A restraint on alienation is generally manifest, in that it prohibits alienation entirely, or allows
alienation only by a specific type of transaction (e.g., a short-term lease or a mortgage to a
financial institution), or only to a specific class of people (e.g., a member of the grantor's or
grantee's family), or after only a specific period of time (e.g., two years after the grantor's
acquisition or only after the grantees death).  Additionally, a substantive restriction may
occur because the grantor's attempted alienation may give rise to a right in the grantee to
1
V.D. Mahajan: Jurisprudence & Legal Theory (Fifth Edition) Pg. 288
2
purchase the property at a price less than its actual market value. 3 In this situation, the grantor
is obligated to keep the property or face the grantee receiving it for a fraction of its true value.
Research Problem
Restraints on alienation are limitations on the grantee's ability to sell the property at any time,
to whomever he chooses, and in whatever manner he chooses. For many purposes, it is
critical to comprehend the importance of the right to exclude in defining property. First, a
better understanding of the essential characteristics of property can lead to a better
understanding of the often-complex legal theory that surrounds it. Second, comprehending
the domain of land is a vital first step in constructing a distributive justice argument or
criticism of property. Third, in order to include a full account of constitutional protections
that cover "land," a more detailed definition of property might be required.
The degree to which an individual transferring real or personal property will restrict the
transferee's subsequent disposition has been a source of contention in the courts for centuries.
The question before the courts have been to ensure whether a restraint is reasonable and
partial or not.
This project aims to examine the laws governing land transfer, specifically the conditions that
prevent property from being alienated after it has been transferred. The researcher would start
by looking at the general rule that all such constraints should be void, and then move on to
partial restraints and other valid conditions. Finally, requirements that can be applied to
restrict land enjoyment would be addressed. The rule will be examined in light of recent
Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
Aim of the Research
 To discuss the legal position of restraint on alienation of property
 To discuss the validity of restraint on alienation of property
 To compare the Indian Law on restraint on alienation of property with the laws in US and
UK
Research Methodology
The researcher has used Doctrinal Method of research for the present paper. Various legal
provisions and cases and have been analysed and discussed to better understand the concept
of the alienation of property and also the laws governing the restraint on such alienation.
Significance of the Study
Recent advances in the field of real property rights protection have reignited debate about the
degree to which the law can secure free alienability of real property and strike down efforts to
limit or penalize an owner's ability to move his property, which is one of the oldest and most
significant battlegrounds of the law. The current struggle takes place in a very different
environment than the feudalistic society that existed in England when the restraints on
alienation doctrine was established, but the materials that follow show that the judicial
position in articulating and applying the doctrine is beginning all over again.
Right to Exclude

3
Grattan, S. (2015). Revisiting Restraints on Alienation: Public and Private Dimensions. Monash University
Law Review, 41(1).
An important aspect of the right to property is the right to exclude. In general, municipal law
allows each person to exempt state and private actors from their property.
In general, three distinct intellectual traditions can be identified when it comes to the nature
of the right to exclude. “Single-variable essentialism,” “multiple-variable essentialism,” and
“nominalism” are terms used to describe these approaches.
Single-variable essentialism
The right to exclude others is the intrinsic central value of property, according to a single-
variable version of essentialism. The right to exclude ("sole and despotic dominion") is both a
requisite and adequate condition of property under this interpretation.4
Multiple variable essentialism
It claims that the nature of property is found not only in the right to exclude others, but in a
broader collection of qualities or events, in which the right to exclude is only one.
Property is characterized by several qualities or events, according to this version of
essentialism. These multiple attributes are defined by Blackstone as the rights of "free use,
enjoyment, and disposal." Surprisingly, the freedom to exclude others is not included on this
list. Furthermore, it seems that the rights to "free use" and "enjoyment" are redundant, or at
the very least incompatible. However, later sources have glossed over these inconsistencies,
translating the Blackstonian trilogy as the rights to “possession, usage, and disposition,” or,
respectively, the rights to exclude, use or indulge, and pass.5
Nominalism
This school of thought regards property as a strictly conventional term with no set
significance, an empty vessel that each legal structure should fill according to its own
principles and beliefs. According to this viewpoint, the right to exclude is neither adequate
nor required for property to exist. Although it is a common feature synonymous with real
estate, its inclusion is not required; it is completely discretionary. Nothing may be classified
as property under a legal code.6
General Principles of Transfer of Property: Subject to a limitation or
condition
The Transfer of Property Act's sections 10, 11, and 12 deal with the imposition of limits or
conditions on property transfers. They consider circumstances in which the transferor of the
interest can place restrictions on the transferee in the instrument.7
The issue that emerges in this situation is whether such constraints are legitimate. If so, under
what conditions do they apply? The answers to these questions can be found in Sections 10,
11, and 12 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Conditions Restraining Alienation
Section 10 of the Act provides: “Where property is transferred subject to a condition or
limitation absolutely restraining the transferee or any person claiming under him from parting
with or disposing of his interest in the property, the condition or limitation is void, except in
4
Merrill, T. W. (1998). Property and the Right to Exclude. Nebraska Law Review, 77(4).
5
Ibid
6
Ibid
7
S.M. Lahiri, The Transfer of Property Act (Act IV of 1882), 11th ed., (India Law House, New Delhi, 2001)
the case of a lease where the condition is for the benefit of the lessor or those claiming under
him: provided that property may be transferred to or for the benefit of a women (not being a
Hindu, Muhammadan or Buddhist), so that she shall not have power during her marriage to
transfer or charge the same or her beneficial interest therein.”8
Conditional transfers
Any capable property owner has the option of transferring his property either unconditionally
or according to certain conditions. Conditions are conditions or limits on the transferees'
rights. Conditional transfers are transfers that are subject to conditions. These conditions may
be either preceding or following. Prior to the transfer, conditions precedent is set, and the
actual transfer is contingent on those conditions being met. The conditions that must be met
after the transition are known as subsequent conditions.9
This states that if a property is transferred according to a clause or prohibition that restricts
the transferee's right to part with or dispose of his interest in the property completely, the
condition is null and void. This rule is generally referred to as the rule against inalienability.
The Act is based on the principle of free property transfer, and free transfer would be
forbidden if restrictions are enforced that prevent further transfer.
Types of Restraints
Since alienation of property is the supreme prerogative of the property owner, he has the
authority to sell it at any time, for any consideration, to any individual, and for any reason.
Certain essential components of the expression "alienation" require collection solely at the
discretion of the transferor or transferee, as well as the duration or regard for the transfer.
A restriction on alienation would therefore require a restriction dictating when he should sell
it, how much consideration he should get, or how he should use the consideration; to whom
he should sell or for what reason he should sell. These constraints will reflect themselves in
the following ways10:
 Restraints on transfer for a particular time
Restriction on alienation with regard to time, for example, a provision not to sell for five
years, ten years, or any other time would be invalid, unless it is for a brief time frame and
is combined with value for the transferor, would be void (option of repurchase). A
provision for a five-year restraint on alienation was found to be valid if the transferee
repurchased it at a higher price within those five years. If he does not, the seller has the
right to alienate.11
 Restraints directing control over consideration/money
When the transferor mandates that the property should only be sold at a set price or
imposes a provision that the property be exchanged for no consideration, market price, or
any other consideration considered necessary by the buyer. Such requirements are void
because they restrict alienation by power over money.
 Restraints with respect to persons/transferee
A condition directing the owner that the property should be sold only after receiving prior
permission or consent may be completely invalid, but in certain situations, based on
evidence and conditions, it could be kept legitimate. In Mahamudali Majumdar v.

8
Section 10 tpa
9
G.P. Tripathi, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, 15th ed., (Central Law Publications, Allahabad: 2005)
10
Dr. Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Property Law, 2nd Ed. (Lexis Nexis: Nagpur, 2011)
11
Loknath Khound v. Gunaram Kalita (AIR 1986 Gau. 52)
 Brikondar Nath12, the court ruled that a transferor selling land to an outsider cannot
impose a clause requiring the latter to sell the property only to members of the transferor's
kin.
 Restraints with respect to sale for particular purposes or use of property
Where the power of selling of property is not stated, but there is still restraint on the
particular reason for which the property may be sold, this may equate to absolute restraint
and therefore be held void. Selling to whom or for what reason should be the present
seller's prerogative, and imposing a condition on it would prevent him from openly
disposing of the property. In Bhawani Amma Kanakadevi v. CSI Dekshina Kerela
MahaIdevaka13, the condition that failure to build a private college on the property would
result in re-conveyance of the property to the transferor for the same consideration was
held to be an absolute restraint.14
Absolute and Partial Restrain
The word restraint refers to the act of blocking, delaying, or crippling someone from doing
something. However, dividing the term into Absolute Restraint and Partial Restraint means
that where there is no absolute restraint on the transferee, there is partial restraint and can be
allowed.
Absolute Restraint
It is a form of restraint in which the transferee's right to alienation is entirely removed. Even
if he is the owner of the property, he has no power to transfer it. These forms of constraints
are found void under this provision. The property must have been sold by the transferee
according to the condition of strict restriction in order to come into this category.
Section 10 frees a transferee of immovable property from an absolute restriction on his ability
to engage with the property as an owner. A condition prohibiting alienation will be invalid
under Section 10. This section applies where property is sold due to a restriction or
prohibition that completely prevents the transferee from selling his interest in the property.
The restraint must be absolute in order to render such a condition void. A requirement putting
full constraint on the right of disposal is null and void.
As a result, this provision acknowledges that alienation and disposition of land is an
inalienable right of the property owner that cannot be absolutely taken away from him and
the rule is known as rule against alienability.
In the seminal case of Rosher v. Rosher15, a person 'A' donated a house worth £15,000 to
another person 'B' as a present. A provision was imposed that if ‘B' sold the house within the
lifespan of ‘A's' wife, she would have the option of purchasing it for £3,000 only. This
requirement was deemed to be a full impediment to the right to alienation and hence null and
void.
In Kannamal v. Rajeshwari16, a life estate was to be established in favor of 'K,' but the
transferor imposed an absolute restriction on alienation during the property convey to K, thus
absolving himself of all his interest in the property. Since it contained an inherent limit, this
restraint was ruled null and void.

12
AIR 1960 Assam 178
13
AIR 2008 Ker. 38
14
Ibid
15
(1884) 26 Ch D 801
16
AIR 2004 NOC 8 (Mad)
Partial Restraint
Section 10 only allows for full restraints. It is deafeningly quiet on the partial restraints. A
partial restriction is one that does not completely exclude the power of alienation but only
limits it to a certain degree. A partial restraint is both legal and enforceable.17
It is critical to distinguish between what constitutes full restraint and what constitutes partial
restraint. To decide whether a constraint is absolute or partial, considering the essence of the
limitation rather than its mere nature is essential.18
A partial restraint that limits transfers to a certain group of people is not unreasonable.
However, if the transition is limited to certain persons, it is an outright restriction and thus
null and void. This was mentioned in the well-known case of Zoroastrian Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd v. District Registrar Co-operative Societies19.
A restriction limiting alienation depending on the time frame in which it cannot be alienated
must be brief and combined with a gain for the transferor, or it would be considered an
absolute condition and prevented. Where the time period was 5 years and the additional
advantage stated that the transferee can repurchase the property for a higher price within that
time period, and if he does not, the purchaser will alienate the property. This was accepted as
a partial condition in the case of Loknath Khound v. Gunaram Kalita20.
A complete restraint on the right to alienation is null and void, but a partial restraint is
acceptable and binding. This law is founded on sound public policy that promotes free
circulation.21
Exceptions to the General Rule
Two exceptions to the law against inalienability are given in Section 10. First, in the case of a
mortgage, Section 10 does not preclude terms or restrictions that are favorable to the lessor or
those alleging under him. Second, property can be sold for the benefit of a woman who is not
a Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist, with the intention that she may not be able to move or alter
her interest in the property during her marriage. This exemption is founded on the coverture
doctrine, which was in use in England during the nineteenth century. Women could be
granted property for their pleasure without having the right to sell it after their marriage.
Women were shielded from being compelled to alienate their property in favor of their
husbands under this provision. Despite the fact that the doctrine of coverture was abolished in
England, this exception remains on the cards in India.
 Lease
Under the general rule imposed by Section 10 of the Act, a transferee of leased land for a
period of years may be able to pass his lease-hold interest, but he cannot establish an estate
that would last past his own term. In the case of a lease, conditional transfer is applicable if
the provision is for the benefit of the lessor or those claiming under him. A lease is a limited
interest transfer in which the lessor (transferor) retains ownership and only grants the right of
enjoyment to the lessee (transferee).

17
Dr. Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Property Law, 2nd Ed. (Lexis Nexis: Nagpur, 2011)
18
Ibid
19
(2005) 5 SCC 632
20
N 11
21
K. Muniaswamy v K. Venkataswamy, AIR 2001 Kant 246
A lessor may require the lessee not to grant his interest in the property or sublease it to
someone else. This is an exception to this general law. The lease can include a clause
prohibiting a tenant from alienating the property and allowing the lessor to re-enter if the
condition is broken. The lessor benefits from such a restriction on the tenants' alienatory
control, and it may be validly enforced.22
It was stressed in the case of Akram Ali v. Durga23 that the provision must be beneficial to the
lessor, that is, it must provide a clause for his re-entry to be legitimate, since otherwise, it is
not beneficial to him.24
A clause requiring the lessee to return the property when the lessor wanted to sell it was
found to be correct in the case of Rama Rao v Thimappa.25
 Married Woman
The second exemption under Section 10 pertains to married women who are not Hindu,
Mohammedan, or Buddhist. Restraints on the power of alienation in favor of married women
who are not Hindus, Muslims, or Buddhists would be upheld. In this respect, the proviso was
added to achieve the same function as English law. The English Courts recognised the rule
that the settler or transferor could include a clause in the deed of settlement or execute as a
restriction on expectation, prohibiting her from anticipating the potential revenue of the
property and from encumbering or alienating it while she was protected and sheltered by her
spouse.
The section states that property can be passed to or for the benefit of those women, with the
caveat that she may not have the right to move or otherwise charge the property or her
beneficial interest in it during her marriage.
Repugnant Conditions
The Act's Section 11 attempts to distinguish between limitations on property transfer and
restrictions on property enjoyment after transfer. Any provision imposed at the time of an
absolute transfer of property to another the restricts that person's use or enjoyment of the
property is invalid. In other words, if an estate is transferred, the transferee has all civil rights
and privileges in it, and no further restrictions on his enjoyment of it can be imposed.
The contract in Manjusha Devi v. Sunil Chandra26 concerned a piece of property. The land
could only be used to construct a jute textile production plant by the transferee, according to
the contract of sale. Section 11 ruled that this condition was unenforceable.
The exemption under the second clause of Section 11 of this Provision is that if the
transferor has another immovable property, the transferor may, in the interests of this
property, prohibit the use of that property by him. The limitation on interest enjoyment would
be applicable in such a situation which would be safeguarded by Section 11 of the Transfer
Act.
Positive and Negative Conditions or Covenants
Conditions or instructions that the transferor can place on the transferee to secure better
enjoyment of his own property may be of two types: constructive or affirmative conditions, in
22
The Transfer of Property Act’ (Eighteenth Edition 2014) by Dr. G.P. Tripathi (P. 108)
23
(1912) 14 Cal. L.J. 614
24
Ibid
25
AIR 1925 Mad 732
26
AIR 1972 Cal 310
which the transferor is directed to do something, and negative conditions, in which the
transferee is restrained from doing something. These provisions are referred to as covenants.27
Differences: Section 10 and Section 11, Transfer of Property Act
The distinction between Sections 10 and 11 is that the former deals with an absolute ban
against alienation of a transfer-created interest, while the latter deals with an absolute transfer
of an interest followed by a limit on its free enjoyment. That is, under Section 10, the
transferee cannot make any interest, no matter how broad or small, restricted or unrestricted,
entirely inalienable. When an interest is generated absolutely in favor of an individual, no
restrictions can be imposed on their complete and unrestricted enjoyment under Section 11.
Where, on the other hand, the generated interest is itself restricted, the enjoyment must be
limited as well.28
As a consequence, Section 10 nullifies the situation when it results in absolute alienation
restriction, while Section 11 nullifies it only where the transition is of absolute nature but the
provisions limit its enjoyment.
The Exception Relating to Insolvency of Transferee
According to Section 12 of the Act, if a transferee with an interest in a property is declared
insolvent, his interest in the property is not forfeited. In reality, any clause that specifies that
if a transferee becomes insolvent, his interest terminates and the interest reverts to the
transferor is null and void.
The Views of the Courts in the United Kingdom
In the UK courts, what would constitute absolute restraint and what would not, has been a
challenging subject. The case of Doe v. Pearson29 was the very first huge advancement on
this subject, and it was decided in 1805. The court decided this case based on the facts and
conditions, finding that the restraint levied was not total and therefore not void. It was an
instance in which a man devised land to his two girls and their children as joint tenants.
However, if one of them did not have an issue, they or she who did not have an issue would
have no right to sell of her share other than to her sister or their kids.
This decision is unquestionably extreme, and it was decided more by its own facts and
circumstances rather than sound law, for it was directly overruled in no later case than
Atwater-v-Atwater30, that case finding a parallel restraint as repugnant to the property granted
and thus void, the case holding in effect that a provision restraining alienation for twenty-five
years was void. It was argued that, notwithstanding Doe v. Pearson31, a condition prohibiting
alienation for a period of twenty-five years was poor because it was incompatible with the
nature of the estate granted. The inclusion of one person's name as the only person to whom
the property can be sold makes it clear that such a proviso is applicable. A restriction on
alienation could be considered complete and effective if no one was named in so far as the
name of the individual who is the only one allowed to buy was chosen in such a way that it
was fairly clear that he would not buy the property and that it could not be alienated at all.

27
N17
28
Law times journal
29

30
18 Beavan, 630
31
N29
As is clear, the law in England was in great dispute, and each court determined each case as it
appeared before it, based on the particular facts and conditions, with no fixed laws and barely
observing precedents. This is strongly seen in the decision in re Malelay32, which upheld a
conditional restriction of separation whereby the "devisee can never sell it out of the family."
This matter was decided on the basis that such a condition was merely a partial constraint on
alienation and therefore not contrary to the essence of the estate devised.
Finally, in the case of Rosher v. Rosher33, we see a thorough analysis of all prior cases and the
establishment of a law that is fair and capable of being followed in all cases. The testator
seems to have devised an estate to his son in equitable interest, with the provision that if he or
his heirs were to sell it or any part of it during his widow's lifetime, she might buy it for three
thousand pounds for the whole or a proportionate amount for any part of it. The estate's actual
sale value was five thousand pounds at the time of the testator's death and at the time of the
will's execution. Such a proviso was deemed void because it amounted to an outright
prohibition against alienation during the testator's wife's lifetime. And that the son was
eligible to choose whatever way he wished to dispose of the property.
The Views of the Courts in the United States
In the courts of the United States, it now seems to be widely agreed that it is illegal for a
testator to annex terms to a devise, thereby limiting the power of alienation. However, we see
a lot of situations where a testator tries to restrict the devisee's disposition of their land, at
least to some degree, by annexing provisions that the devisee shall not alienate the property to
anybody other than the testator's designated individual or persons. These narrow restrictions
have resulted in an inexhaustible volume of lawsuits.
In DePeyster v. Mechose34 it was held by the court that, “It is well settled rule at common law
that a perpetuated and total restriction upon the power of alienation of an estate is void as
repugnant to the estate and its failure does not affect the validity of the grant or devise.”
In the case of Shemmergorn v. Hegus35, lands were devised to those children with the
condition that they not sell or alienate the same to someone other than each other or the estate
will be forfeited. The devise was lawful and legitimate, but the clause was incompatible with
the estate being devised and therefore invalid.
Another example of narrow restrictions on alienation that has sparked much debate and
disagreement is the prohibition on alienating to a certain individual or persons or for a
specific period of time, as designated. Some authority hold that all such provisions should be
supported as being in no way contradictory or repugnant to the essence of the estate given
and are therefore regarded as just a partial restriction, whose power is nothing more than that
the grantors and devisors should be able to exercise, if he wishes to take advantage of it in
any specific instance.
According to Monroe v. Hall 36, the law is not so broad in its implementation as to exclude all
limitations and restrictions on the power of alienation that are limited and fair in their
application and as to the period they must exist, etc. from being legitimate and upheld.

32
15 Law Reports, 20 Eq. 188
33
26 Ch. Div. 30
34
5 N. Y. 467
35
1 Denio 448
36
97 N.C. 206
The same provision was held to be good in the case of Blackstone v. Davis37, where a
condition that the grantee or devisee not alienate for a certain period or to a certain individual
or individuals was held to be good.
Shelley v. Kraemer38, a 1948 Supreme Court case, involved an African-American family
attempting to buy a house in St. Louis. However, the house they wished to buy was subject to
a racially discriminatory pact, which stated that the building owners would not sell to
someone who was not Caucasian. The covenants were found to be unlawful restrictions on
alienation by the Court. If a state court upholds covenants prohibiting property purchases to
citizens of a certain color, the state has engaged in "discriminatory state activity," which is
illegal under the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment's provision of equal treatment of
the rules, according to the Court, requires a person's freedom to possess and dispose of land.

37
21 Pick. 43
38
334 US 1 (1948).
Conclusion
The right to alienation, along with a slew of other rights, applies to real, private, tangible, and
intangible property. Different methods of alienating a piece of property include sale, lease,
hire, pledge, bail, and so on. As a result, these alienations can be limited in a variety of
respects, and can be either partial or complete. The aim of this paper was to explain how the
theory of free alienability operates in India, the United States, and the United Kingdom.
In India, Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act states that when estate is transferred
pursuant to a clause that prohibits the transferee from transferring his interest in the property,
the condition is null and void. The basic premise of this clause is that a right to alienate is
incidental to and inseparable from property ownership. The rule that a state of total restriction
is unconstitutional is often based on a public policy norm that allows free movement and
disposal of assets. The only provision that is rendered invalid is one that prohibits the
transferee from disposing of the interest in any way. It's possible that a condition enforcing
partial constraint is legitimate. The test is whether the condition significantly reduces the
capacity of alienation; it is a matter of substance, not structure. The section makes two
exceptions: one for married women and another for lessors. Partial conditions may be validly
imposed on time, amount or classes of people.
The different Courts of the aforementioned countries were unanimous in their conclusion that
an absolute restriction on the freedom to freely alienate would be declared void and
unenforceable. If the Court determines that a restriction levied on a transfer absolutely
restricts the above-mentioned privilege, it would not be validated by the Court's decree,
whether it is based on written legislation (Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act) or the
theory of public policy. The transfers, though, will be legitimate in any case. Individual
liberty and social utility are the guiding ideals of this law, which is still relevant today.