Section 43 transfer protection applies where a seller lacked title, and pendente lite transfer is not void.

Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act applies where a transferor makes a fraudulent or erroneous representation of authority to transfer immovable property and the transferee acts on it for consideration, so long as the transfer contract is competent and subsisting. A transfer pendente lite under Section 52 is not void; it remains subject to the result of the suit. On the stated facts, the transaction was not void or otherwise unlawful, the challenge based on Section 41 did not defeat the transferee's claim, and a party claiming through an unproved will could not rely on a plea available only to the original transferor. The transferee was entitled to Section 43 protection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the transferee could invoke Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 despite the transferor having no title at the time of sale and the transaction having occurred during pending litigation.

Analysis: Section 43 embodies the rule of feeding the estoppel and applies where a person makes a fraudulent or erroneous representation of authority to transfer immovable property and the transferee acts on that representation for consideration, provided the contract of transfer is competent and subsisting. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 only makes a transfer pendente lite subject to the result of the suit and does not render it void. The Court found that the transaction in question was not void or contrary to law, that the plea based on invalidity under Section 41 could not defeat the claim under Section 43, and that the appellant, who claimed through an unproved Will, could not raise a plea that was available only to the original transferor.

Conclusion: The transferee was entitled to the benefit of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the appeal failed.

---