| Headnote |
Release Deed – Effect of – Spes Successionis – Estoppel – Warding off, of estoppel by heirs of the person whose conduct created the estoppel – Impropriety of – Dispute regarding self-acquired property of ‘S’ – ‘S’ had married twice – From the first marriage, a son ‘C’ was born, whose two children were the appellants – When one child of ‘C’ was minor and other was not born, he executed a release deed for relinquishing his share in the property for valuable consideration in the year 1975 – It was also specified in the release deed that ‘C’ will not have any relation apart from blood relation with ‘S’ – ‘C’ predeceased his father in the year 1978 – Two children from the second marriage of ‘S’ filed suit for partition for self-acquired property of ‘S’ and contended to exclude the children from the first marriage of ‘S’ on the basis of the release deed – Trial court found the release deed to be null and void since it was executed by ‘C’, when his father was alive – Thus, the property was divided between the children from both the marriages equally – On appeal, the High Court found the release deed to be a valid document and excluded the appellants – High Court held that the release deed coupled with the consideration received by ‘C’ acted as an estoppel against the appellants – Appellants assailed the High Court judgment on two grounds – Firstly, ‘C’, the father of appellants, at the time of the execution of release deed merely had a right as spes successionis, and, thus, the release deed had no effect – Secondly, the father being a natural guardian did not have the power to bind the minor by a personal covenant – Held: On facts, the property in dispute was the self-acquired property of ‘S’ – Thus, at the time of execution of the release deed, ‘C’, the father of the appellants, did not possess any right in the property apart from being a spes successionis – Further, ‘S’, the father of ‘C’, paid valuable consideration in order to secure the interest of the son from the second marriage, who used to be ill – Release deed by a spes successionis would be incapable to convey or relinquish any interest in the property – However, on facts, execution of the release deed relinquished every other right apart from being a blood relative – Additionally, the conduct accompanied by receipt of valuable consideration estopped ‘C’, the father of appellants, from claiming any right in the property – On the personal covenant, the limitation in s. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,1956 can only be applicable when the minor possessed any independent right in the property – On facts, it was not even the case of the appellants that they had any such independent right – Thus, the release deed cannot be interdicted as being a personal covenant by the natural guardian which cannot bind a minor – Further contention that when the succession opened in 1988 on the death of their grandfather ‘S’, appellants being sons of ‘C’, the predeceased son of ‘S’, formed part of class-I heir category under the Hindu Succession Act, not acceptable – Appellants were claiming through their father ‘C’ and cannot ward off the estoppel created by the conduct of ‘C’ under whom they were claiming right in the property – Judgment of High Court accordingly affirmed –Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – s. 8 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s. 6(a) – s. 8.Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s. 6(a) – Spes successonis – 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 – Held: Cannot be transferred – A living man has no heir – Equally, a person who may become the heir and entitled to succeed under the law upon the death of his relative would not have any right until succession to the estate is opened up – Unlike a co-parcener who acquires right to joint family property by his mere birth, in regard to the separate property of the Hindu, no such right exists – Transfer by an heir apparent being mere spes successonis is ineffective to convey any right. Estoppel – Effect of – Held: The effect of estoppel cannot be warded off by persons claiming through the person whose conduct generated the estoppel – The impact of estoppel applies irrespective of the personal law applicable to the party concerned – On facts, ‘C’, having received valuable consideration and allowed his father ‘S’ to proceed on the basis that the latter was free to deal with his self-acquired property without the prospect of being haunted by any claim whatsoever as regards the property by ‘C’, a clear estoppel sprang into existence following the receipt of consideration by ‘C’ – Estoppel would shut out in equity any claim otherwise either by ‘C’ or his children, viz., the appellants. |
