ELUMALAI @ VENKATESAN & ANR versus M. KAMALA AND ORS. & ETC.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 261 · Decided: 25-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
261
ELUMALAI @ VENKATESAN & ANR
v.
M. KAMALA AND ORS. & ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 521-522 of 2023)
JANUARY 25, 2023
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
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,
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 261
261
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
262
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
263
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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.