1.      Introduction

The transfer of property, especially when it involves income-generating assets such as rents, annuities, pensions, or dividends, raises important questions about the fair division of periodical payments between the parties involved. When an interest in such property is transferred, whether through sale, assignment, or other means, how should the income accrued before and after the transfer be apportioned? This issue is addressed by Section 36 of the Indian Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA), which outlines the rules for the apportionment of periodical payments upon the transfer of an interest in property.

Section 36 plays a vital role in determining how rents, annuities, pensions, and similar payments are divided between the transferor and transferee, ensuring that both parties receive their fair share based on the period of entitlement. By treating these payments as accruing day by day, the law removes ambiguities that could otherwise lead to disputes. The provision is not only crucial for the smooth functioning of property transactions but also reflects the underlying principle of equity, ensuring that those entitled to a portion of the income generated from a property are treated fairly, regardless of the timing of the transfer.

This article provides a comprehensive exploration of Section 36, examining its scope, applications, limitations, and exceptions, and illustrating its relevance in modern property law. Through detailed analysis and case law references, we will delve into the intricate nuances of apportionment, highlighting the balance Section 36 seeks to strike between the interests of the transferor and transferee while providing clarity and legal certainty in property transactions.

2.     Understanding Section 36: Apportionment of Periodical Payments on Determination of Interest

Section 36 of the TPA articulates a principle that governs the apportionment of periodical payments, such as rent, annuities, pensions, and dividends. The central concept outlined in this section is that in the absence of any specific contract or local usage to the contrary, these periodical payments shall be deemed to accrue from day to day and shall be apportioned between the transferor (the person transferring the interest) and transferee (the person receiving the interest) from the date of transfer. This apportionment is calculated in proportion to the time during which the transferor or transferee held the right to receive the income.

1. Key Principle of Apportionment

The essence of this rule is that the periodical payments, whether they are rents, pensions, or dividends, are considered to be due on a daily basis. Consequently, when the transfer of the right to receive such payments takes place, they must be divided between the transferor and transferee based on the time each of them was entitled to receive them. [1]

In simpler terms, if a person transfers their interest in a property or a financial entitlement that yields periodic payments, they are only entitled to the portion of the payment accrued during the time they held that interest. The remainder belongs to the transferee, who becomes entitled to receive payments after the transfer date.[2]

1. Example:

To understand this better, consider the following example:

• A lets his house at a rent of ₹100 per month, payable on the last day of each month. On 15th June, A sells the house to B. The rent is due on 30th June.
• A is entitled to ₹50 for the period from 1st June to 15th June (half of the rent). Similarly, B is entitled to ₹50 for the period from 15th June to 30th June. This example demonstrates how rent can be apportioned based on the period during which the transferor or transferee was entitled to receive the income.

3.     Apportionment by Time and Estate: A Comparative Analysis

Section 36 distinguishes between two forms of apportionment—apportionment by time and apportionment by estate. The former deals with the division of the income over a specified period, while the latter pertains to the apportionment when the estate or interest in the property is divided.

1. Apportionment by Time

Section 36 explicitly discusses apportionment by time. The rule outlined in this section applies to the apportionment of income that is payable at fixed intervals (such as rents). In the example mentioned earlier, the rent for June is apportioned between A and B based on the time they each held the property. This approach allows for an equitable distribution of payments based on when the interest in the property was transferred.[3]

1. Apportionment by Estate

On the other hand, apportionment by estate occurs when the actual estate or interest in the property is divided among different parties. In such cases, the rent or income must be divided based on the proportion of ownership or interest each party holds in the property.[4]

For example:

• A lets out his house at a rent of ₹100 per month. A sells half of the house to B, and the tenant is notified of this sale.
• In this case, the tenant must pay ₹50 to A and ₹50 to B as rent for the entire month, each in proportion to their respective shares of the house.

In this instance, the apportionment is made by estate because the property is divided between A and B, and the tenant is required to pay rent accordingly.

4.     The Scope and Limitations of Section 36

The applicability of Section 36 is limited to specific cases. It only applies to transfers inter vivos (between living persons), which means the rule is not applicable to transfers that occur upon death (i.e., through succession). It also does not extend to involuntary transfers, such as those arising through operation of law (e.g., execution sales, partition, etc.)

1. Transfer of Interest in Property Yielding Income

Section 36 ensures that when a property is transferred and it generates periodic income (such as rent), the income for the period before and after the transfer is fairly divided between the transferor and transferee. This is in line with the provision in Section 8 of the TPA, which provides that the transferee is entitled to the interest or income accruing after the transfer takes effect. However, to avoid any anomalies arising from income that does not accrue daily (such as rents), Section 36 stipulates that these income streams should be treated as accruing on a daily basis for the purpose of apportionment.

1. Section 36’s Exclusion of Involuntary Transfers

Section 36 does not apply to situations where the transfer happens by operation of law. For instance, in cases of execution sales, where property is sold to satisfy a judgment debt, the rule of apportionment does not apply. This is illustrated in the case where a mortgagee buys the mortgaged property at a court sale in November 1922, and the rent for the year is due on 1st April 1923. Despite the mortgagor claiming a share of the rent for the period prior to the sale, the mortgagee was held to be entitled to the entire year’s rent, as the transfer was by operation of law, not by voluntary agreement.

Similarly, the apportionment rule does not apply to partition cases. A partition is a division of property that occurs when co-owners separate their shares. In such cases, the parties are not transferring their interests, and the rule of apportionment does not apply. Each party to a partition already holds rights in the portion of the property allotted to them.

1. Case Law on Involuntary Transfers

In several cases, Indian courts have addressed the issue of apportionment in involuntary transfers. For example, in one case, it was held that the mortgagee, who purchased the property at an execution sale, was entitled to the entire year’s rent, regardless of when the property was transferred in relation to the rent due date. This ruling reaffirms that the rule of apportionment does not apply to execution sales or involuntary transfers.[5]

5.     Exceptions and Specific Considerations in Apportionment

While Section 36 lays down a general rule for apportionment, there are certain exceptions and specific circumstances where the rule may not be applied or where local usage or contracts override it.

1. Exclusion by Contract or Local Usage

The rule of apportionment can be excluded by a contract between the parties or by local usage. For instance, a managing agent who assigns his entire interest in an agency might be bound by a contract that excludes his right to commissions accrued before the assignment.

In agricultural tenancies, Section 36 provides that apportionment may not always be done based on the calendar year or fixed periods but may instead follow the season in which the crops are harvested. The Allahabad High Court, for instance, applies the rule of apportionment with reference to the harvest season, rather than the full year’s rent.

1. Prepaid Rent: Not Apportioned

Another important aspect under Section 36 is the treatment of prepaid rent. Prepaid rent is treated as a loan and is not subject to the apportionment rules. In cases where rent is paid in advance for a period that spans beyond the transfer date, the advance payment is not divided according to the rule of apportionment but rather returned as part of the loan.

1. Maintenance Payments and Apportionment

In cases where maintenance is owed, particularly in the context of Hindu law, the apportionment rule can also apply. A Hindu widow’s maintenance, for example, is deemed to accrue on a day-to-day basis, and her heirs are entitled to recover the maintenance payments due up to the day of her death.

1. Agricultural Tenancies

Agricultural tenancies are treated differently. The principle in Section 36 does not apply to agricultural rents in the same manner as urban rents, primarily due to the nature of agricultural work. The apportionment of agricultural rents may be governed by specific local laws and agricultural practices.

6.     Conclusion

The apportionment of periodical payments on the transfer of property interests is a significant aspect of property law, particularly in cases involving leases, rents, and other recurring payments. Section 36 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provides a clear framework for determining how such payments should be divided between the transferor and transferee, ensuring fairness and clarity in property transactions.

The rule of apportionment by time is a fundamental principle, allowing for a smooth and just distribution of income, while the provision for apportionment by estate helps address cases where the ownership or entitlement to the property is divided. However, the section’s application is limited to inter vivos transfers and does not extend to transfers by operation of law, such as executions or partitions.

The law also allows for exclusions and variations through contracts and local customs, which can influence the manner in which apportionment is handled. Additionally, the treatment of prepaid rent and agricultural tenancies highlights the complexity and nuance in applying Section 36.

Overall, Section 36 serves as an important tool in the fair distribution of income and obligations arising from property transfers, ensuring that both transferors and transferees receive their rightful entitlements based on the time or estate in question. As property laws continue to evolve, the principles outlined in Section 36 remain relevant in ensuring transparency and equity in property transactions.

 

[1] Poongavanam Pillai v. V. Subramanya Pillai and Anr., AIR 1951 MAD 601.

[2] Nand Kishore v. Ram Sarup, AIR 1927 ALL 569.

[3] Id.

[4] Rangiah Chetti v. Vajravelu Mudaliar, (1918) I.L.R. 41 Mad. 370.

[5] K.K. Verma v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 BOM 358.