{"id":284633,"date":"2023-02-21T10:00:05","date_gmt":"2023-02-21T04:30:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=284633"},"modified":"2023-02-24T10:28:00","modified_gmt":"2023-02-24T04:58:00","slug":"effect-of-estoppel-cannot-be-warded-off-by-persons-claiming-through-the-one-whose-conduct-generated-such-estoppel-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/21\/effect-of-estoppel-cannot-be-warded-off-by-persons-claiming-through-the-one-whose-conduct-generated-such-estoppel-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","title":{"rendered":"Effect of estoppel cannot be warded off by persons claiming through the one whose conduct generated such estoppel: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/b> In a civil appeal against the Madras High Court’s denial of appellants’ entitlement in the suit property on account of the release deed executed by their father, the bench of K.M. Joseph∗<\/b> and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. held that the effect of principle of estoppel cannot be warded off by persons claiming through the person whose conduct generated such estoppel. The Court found the present appeal bereft of any merit and dismissed the matter.<\/p>\n

The present matter pertains to the self-acquired property of ‘X’ who married twice. ‘Z’ was born to X from his first marriage, who pre-deceased his father in 1978, while X died in 1988. Z had executed a relinquishment, having received valuable consideration in return. The present matter relates to a suit for partition of property filed by two of X’s children born from second marriage. The Trial Court found the release deed to be a void document, since it was executed by Z in 1975, when his father was still alive. On the other hand, the High Court relied on Gulam Abbas<\/i> v. Haji Kayyum Ali<\/i>, (1973) 1 SCC 1<\/a> and found that the appellants were not entitled to claim any share in the property. The appellants, being aggrieved by the High Court’s view, approached the Court through the present matter.<\/p>\n

The Court examined Section 6 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882<\/a> which enumerates transferable properties and Section 6(a) which declares that a chance of an heir apparent succeeding to an estate, the chance of a relation obtaining a legacy on the death of a kinsman or other mere possibility of a like nature cannot be transferred. The Court commented that a living man has no heir, and the person who may become an heir and entitled to legally succeed upon the death of his relative would not have any right until succession to the estate is opened.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that when X was alive, Z at best had a spes successionis, i.e., the possibility of succeeding in a property after X’s death. And that, the Hindu law does not grant a right by birth in case of a separate property. Z would have acquired rights in the said property, only if his father would have died intestate. Thus, in the Court’s opinion, the release deed may not affect transfer of rights in favour of X or anyone else.<\/p>\n

The Court examined the following issues while dealing with the present matter:<\/p>\n