Section 79: Sections 76 to 123 [Repealed by the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930]

Indian Contract Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1872

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 79

Section 79 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 originally governed the transfer of ownership of things sold which had yet to be ascertained, made, or finished, establishing that ownership cannot pass until the goods are completed; repealed by Act 3 of 1930 and succeeded by Sections 18 and 20 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

  • Unascertained and Inchoate Chattels: Addressed agreements for the sale of goods not yet in existence, incomplete, or requiring manufacturing, processing, or finishing operations.
  • Mandatory Ascertainment and Completion Rule: Ownership could not pass to the buyer until the goods were fully manufactured, finished, ascertained, and put into a deliverable state.
  • Legislative Repeal and Modern Succession (Act 3 of 1930): Repealed by Act 3 of 1930 and codified into Sections 18 and 20 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, cementing the rule that no property in unascertained goods can transfer until they are ascertained.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Badri Prasad v. State of M.P. (1971) 3 SCC 23: The Supreme Court applied the principles originating in Sections 79 and 80 of the Contract Act (now Sections 18 and 20 of the SGA), holding that title in forest timber could not pass to the purchaser until the trees were cut, dressed, and ascertained.
  • State of Gujarat v. Variety Degreasing Co. (1983) 1 SCC 214: The Supreme Court held that ascertainment and deliverability are mandatory conditions precedent to the passing of property in goods under the Sale of Goods Act lineage.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When drafting manufacturing or custom equipment supply agreements, incorporate explicit milestones indicating that property remains with the fabricator until the goods are fully finished and inspected. In insolvency proceedings, rely on this principle to defeat attempts by the buyer's resolution professional to claim title over unfinished work-in-progress.