The Latin maxim "Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet" translates to "no one gives what they do not have". It is a foundational principle in property and commercial law, particularly in the law of transfer of property and sale of goods. It essentially means that a person who does not have a valid title to property cannot transfer a better title to another.

The Apex Court in Rusoday Securities Ltd. v. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., 2021-3 SCC 401, held that when literally translated, Nemo dat quod non habet means that "No one gives what they do not have."

This doctrine protects the true owner's rights and maintains the sanctity of property ownership, but it also occasionally conflicts with the rights of bona fide purchasers. Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have consistently interpreted and balanced these competing interests.

Statutory Foundation

In India, the principle finds statutory recognition in:

• Section 27 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930

"Where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had…"

This section clearly embodies the nemo dat principle.
 

Key Elements of the Doctrine

• Absence of Ownership or Authority: The transferor must lack the title or authority to transfer the property.
• Inability to Transfer Better Title: The transferee cannot get a better title than the transferor holds.
• Protection of True Owner's Rights: The law prioritizes the original owner's claim over that of an innocent buyer, subject to certain exceptions.

 

Supreme Court Interpretations and Case Law

• Sri Krishna Coconut Co. v. The East Godavari Coconut and Tobacco Market Committee, AIR 1967 SC 973
  Facts: Dispute arose regarding the transfer of goods by a person who was not the lawful owner.
  Held: The Supreme Court upheld the nemo dat rule:
  "A purchaser acquires no better title than what the seller possesses unless the law itself provides an exception."
  This case reaffirmed the principle's fundamental position in the sale of goods jurisprudence.
  
  
• Union of India vs Vijay Krishna Uniyal (D) Thr. Lrs, (2018) 11 SCC 382
  The Court held that permitting parties to assert title beyond what predecessors possessed violates the maxim nemo dat quod non habet – "no one gives what he does not possess."
  
  
• Official Assignee of Bombay v. Madholal Sindhu & Co., AIR 1947 PC 82
  Though pre-Constitution, this case remains relevant.
  Held: "No one can give a better title than he himself possesses, unless authorised by the true owner or empowered by law."
  
  
• Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736
  Facts: Related to the leasing of aircraft engines by a non-owner.
  Held: "A person cannot transfer better rights than what he possesses, unless authorized by the real owner."
  
  
• Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, (2022) 7 SCC 90
  The Supreme Court held:
  "It is a fundamental principle of the law of transfer of property that no one can confer a better title than what he himself has."
  
  
• P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K Patkar, 2023 SCC Online SC 1483
  The Court reiterated: "A vendor cannot transfer a title to the vendee better than he himself possesses."
  
• New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Anand Sonbhadra, (2023) 1 SCC 724
  The Court discussed ownership and the exceptions to the nemo dat rule, noting:
  A non-owner even though he has possession, cannot normally transfer the rights of ownership over a thing to another.
  
  

Exceptions to the Nemo Dat Rule

• Estoppel (Section 27, Proviso, Sale of Goods Act) – True owner by conduct precludes denial of seller's authority.
• Sale by a Mercantile Agent – In possession with owner's consent and acting in ordinary course of business.
• Sale by a co-owner in possession (Section 28)
• Sale under a voidable contract (Section 29)
• Sale by seller or buyer in possession after sale (Sections 30(1) & 30(2))
• Auction sales and court orders
• Negotiable Instruments
   

State Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar Singh, AIR 1969 SC 401:
"The property in coins and currency notes passes by mere delivery... This exception applies if the transferee takes in good faith for value and without notice of defect in title."

Transfer in Good Faith for Value

Applied where the purchaser takes reasonable care to ensure that the transferor has valid authority, and both parties act in good faith.

The Apex Court in V. Chandrasekaran VS Administrative Officer, 2012 12 SCC 133, held thus:

23. The general rule of law is undoubted, that no one can transfer a better title than he himself possesses; Nemo dat quod non habet. However, this Rule has certain exceptions and one of them is, that the transfer must be in good faith for value, and there must be no misrepresentation or fraud, which would render the transactions as void and also that the property is purchased after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferee has the requisite power to transfer the said land, and finally that, the parties have acted in good faith, as is required under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

These statutory carve-outs balance the doctrine with commercial realities and protection of bona fide purchasers.

Modern Application and Relevance
In today's commercial transactions- involving digital assets, securities, movable machinery, or real estate — the doctrine serves as a critical safeguard. However, it must be interpreted pragmatically in light of technological and transactional complexities.

The Supreme Court has applied the doctrine not just in property law, but in cases involving lease agreements, intellectual property, and contractual disputes as well.

Conclusion
The doctrine of nemo dat quod non habet is a bedrock principle of Indian property law and commercial jurisprudence. While it promotes certainty and security in ownership, courts have also recognized the necessity of exceptions in good faith transactions to sustain trade and commerce.

The Supreme Court of India has consistently upheld the doctrine while also balancing the equities between true owners and bona fide purchasers. Going forward, the rule will continue to shape legal thinking around ownership rights in both tangible and intangible assets.

Written By: Inder Chand Jain
Ph no: 8279945021, inderjain2007@rediffmail.com

Also Read:

• Nemo Dat Quod Non-Habet
• Analysis Of The Maxim Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Under The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930