1) Introduction

In India, equity-based property transfer principles were superseded by a structured code derived from English law and court rulings in the Transfer of Property Act, of 1882 [1]. It attempted to close justice gaps by defining and regulating property transfer laws. It offers a consistent framework for the transfer of immovable property and was enacted in 1882. It has undergone numerous amendments and incorporates theories like as cypress, acceleration, and part performance for efficient legislation.

2) What is the Doctrine of Acceleration

Equity principles controlled the transfer of immovable property in India before the Act of 1882 was passed. Most of the Act of 1882's provisions were derived from Court of Equity rulings rendered before 1884. At times, the judiciary was compelled to render decisions according to their interpretations of equity and justice. An English law commission was established to draft a substantive law code for property transfers in India to remedy the situation. This has been the situation since the Transfer of Property Act was passed in 1882. A total of twelve changes have been made to its provisions.

The Transfer of Property Act of 1882 aims to amend, codify, and clarify the laws about property transfers and the persons that are involved. A consistent and systematic approach to regulating the transfer of immovable property between living individuals is provided by the Act. The sections include a variety of ideas to make it an effective regulation, including the doctrine of part performance, the doctrine of acceleration, and the doctrine of cypress, among others.

In general, acceleration refers to a reduction in the amount of time until an event occurs. As per Sec. 27 of the Transfer of Property Act, conditional transfer to one person coupled with transfer to another on failure of prior disposition, the ulterior disposition shall become on failure of prior disposition. The doctrine of Acceleration essentially talks about conditional transfer to at least one person including transfer to a different person with a condition as mentioned in the case Ismail Haji v. Umar Abdulla [2]

When a property is created in one person's name through a transfer and another person creates an ulterior disposition of the same interest in the same transaction, if the prior disposition under the transfer fails, the ulterior disposition takes effect upon the prior disposition's failure, even if the transferor's intended method of failure was not followed. In cases where the parties to the transaction intend for the ulterior disposition to only materialize if the prior disposition fails in a certain fashion, however, the ulterior disposition will not materialize until the prior disposition fails in that specific manner.

According to the acceleration concept, if someone has the legal right to demand control of the property at a later date, that right may be expedited if that person loses that right, accelerating the interest of the surviving beneficiaries, who then get their interest immediately. Furthermore, by the doctrine of acceleration, property resulting from the mediator's demise, negligence, or other events shall be awarded to the last beneficiary.

3) Judgements related to the Doctrine of Acceleration

Ajudhia v. Rakhman Kaur

In this case the husband wanted to givf his property to his wife but according to the local act of the place, where the property was, a wife can't have uch gife and therefore the property got transferred to his children.[3]

V.S. Mani vs Commissioner of Gift-Tax

According to the law, each of the three people would receive a present interest concerning a 1/3 part in each of the properties left by the testator as a legal consequence if the doctrine of acceleration had to be applied in this case as a result of the deed of release being executed but in this case, that has not occurred, and the instrument only conferred an interest about specific properties. One cannot characterize this outcome as acceleration. Release may be partial and need not apply to all bequeathed possessions, but in order for the transaction to fall inside the purview of the acceleration principle, it must benefit all remaining parties and cannot be partial concerning only a subset of them. In light of this, the court was required to determine whether there had been a transfer of property when the life estate holder's surrender resulted in an acceleration of the remaindermen's interest. It was decided that no property was transferred.

The most important thing to keep in mind in that situation is that the surrender was made on behalf of the entire group of militiamen, not just any particular members of the group. That particular case qualified under the above-discussed acceleration doctrine. [4]

Moti Raiji v. Laldas Jibhai

In this case, it was decided that even though there hasn't been any acceleration in this case, the alienation of two-thirds of the property to reversioners amounts to this and nothing more and that there is no way to distinguish between an alienation to a reversioner and an alienation to a third party. If the alienation is, in fact, an alienation, then it must be governed by general law, which mandates legal necessity for the validation of all such alienations. We believe we have provided sufficient justification to hold that, in this case, legal necessity cannot be said to be even alleged, much less proven, and that the plaintiffs will not benefit from the doctrine of acceleration. The judgment we've reached is that as the adopted son, defendant, and appellant here, are entitled to challenge the plaintiffs' claim that the widow's 1893 alienation under the award was not necessary for legal reasons and, therefore, became void against him at the time of his adoption. This is the conclusion we have reached after reviewing the entire case. Therefore, in our opinion, he now has the right to have that alienation reversed in his favor. As a result, we must grant the appeal and reject the plaintiffs' claim in its entirety. [5]

4) Conclusion

The English doctrine known as the Doctrine of Acceleration, which is a rule of constructive based on condition and prior transfer, is one of the key doctrines under Transfer of Property Act. Interest is interpreted broadly with regard to property limitations when it is necessary to require prompt effect following an early assessment of the prior interest.

The doctrine of acceleration is a subset of conditional transfer, which discusses conditional transfers to one individual and transfers to another in the event that a previous disposition is not met.

5) Citations

1) Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

2) Ismail Haji v. Umar Abdulla, AIR 1942.

3) Ajudhia v. Rakhman Kaur, AIR1883.

4) V.S. Mani vs Commissioner of Gift-Tax, AIR1980.

5) Moti Raiji vs Laldas Jibhai, AIR 1916.