Summary
In 1975 Chandran received jewellery and goods from his father and executed a release deed giving up any share in his father's self-acquired property. He died in 1978, before his father died intestate in 1988. Chandran's sons claimed a share as Class I heirs. The trial court treated the release as void, but the Madras High Court excluded them by applying the estoppel principle in Gulam Abbas. The Supreme Court agreed. A release of a mere expectancy is no transfer under Section 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. But Chandran, having taken consideration and led his father not to make other arrangements, would have been estopped. His sons, who claim through him, are equally bound.
Issues
- Whether a release deed executed for consideration by a son in respect of his father's self-acquired property during the father's lifetime, though ineffective as a transfer of a spes successionis, estops the son and those claiming through him from claiming a share when the father dies intestate.
- Whether Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 or Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 saves the grandsons from that estoppel.
Provisions considered
- Section 6(a), Transfer of Property Act, 1882The chance of an heir apparent succeeding to an estate cannot be transferred; as the property was separate and not coparcenary, Chandran had only a spes successionis in 1975 and the release deed operated as no transfer. (¶¶ 10, 14)
- Sections 6 and 8(1), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956The bar on a natural guardian binding a minor by a personal covenant presupposes property or rights of the minor; the appellants had no right in the property in 1975 or when their father died, so the release was not a covenant on their behalf within Section 8. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Section 8(a), Hindu Succession Act, 1956Although sons of a predeceased son are Class I heirs, their title derives through their father, the representor, and estoppel binds those claiming through him as it would have bound him. (¶¶ 22, 23)
Held
- Following Gulam Abbas, a bare renunciation of an expectancy does not bind the heir, but where he receives consideration and so conducts himself as to lead the owner not to make dispositions of his property, he is estopped from asserting the right when it vests; the deed, executed after the second marriage to secure the interest of the ailing son of that marriage and declaring that only blood relationship remained, together with the father's not making a will, shows that Chandran would have been estopped had he survived. (¶¶ 11, 13, 15, 16, 24)
- Following Spencer Bower and Turner, the burden of an estoppel devolves on those claiming under the deceased representor, so the appellants cannot ward it off by invoking their status as Class I heirs; the principle of estoppel applies irrespective of the religion of the parties, Gulam Abbas having arisen under Muslim law. (¶¶ 22, 23)
Result
Civil Appeal Nos. 521-522 of 2023 dismissed, parties bearing their own costs; the Madras High Court judgment dated 20.10.2016 in A.S. Nos. 718 and 883 of 2009, excluding the appellants from any share in the A-Schedule property, upheld.