Back
1918 Supreme(SC) 23
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
VISCOUNT HALDANE, LORD DUNEDIN, LORD SUMNER, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND MR. AMEER ALI.
RAJA OF DEO - Appellant
Versus
ABDULLAH - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court in Bengal.
Decided On : March 18, 1918.
Solicitors for appellant:T. L. Wilson & Co. Solicitor for first respondent: E. Datyado.
A successor in interest who acquires property by gratuitous title is bound by the estoppel created by the predecessor's conduct. If the predecessor's representations induced another to change their position, the successor cannot deny the title that the predecessor was estopped from denying.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1884 - Sections 54, 123, 41 and 7 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 115 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 11 - Estoppel by conduct - Successor in interest - Where the predecessor of the defendant, being the true owner of a property, caused a conveyance to be executed in favor of another and actively assisted in the registration and mutation of the property, thereby inducing the recipient to change their position by assuming state liabilities, the predecessor is estopped from denying the title of the recipient - A successor who succeeds to the estate by gratuitous title is bound by the same estoppel and cannot do what the predecessor would have been unable to do.
(B) Minority - Onus of proof - The burden to prove minority lies on the party asserting it - If the party asserting minority fails to bring reliable evidence, the assertion cannot be sustained merely by criticizing the evidence produced by the opposing party to rebut the claim.
Facts of the case:
The predecessor of the appellant, who was the true owner of a village, caused the heir of a trustee to execute a conveyance of the village in favor of his daughter. The predecessor actively assisted the daughter in applying for registration and mutation of names in the government register, stating he had no objection. After the predecessor's death, the appellant succeeded to the estate. The daughter subsequently sold the property to the respondent. The appellant challenged the respondent's title, arguing that the daughter had no formal title to convey and was a minor at the time of the sale.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to provide reliable evidence to prove the daughter's minority. Regarding the title, although formal title had not passed through the chain of conveyances, the predecessor's conduct in facilitating the transfer and registration created an estoppel that prevented him from denying the daughter's title.
Issues: Whether the appellant was estopped from denying the title of the vendor based on the conduct of his predecessor, and whether the vendor was a minor at the time of the conveyance to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: A person who makes a representation that induces another to change their position—specifically by becoming bound for state liabilities attaching to registered holders of immovable property—is estopped from denying the validity of that position. A successor in interest who acquires title gratuitously is bound by the estoppel created by the predecessor's conduct.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
transfer of property
- registration
- title by estoppel
-
trusts
- benamidar
-
transfer of property
-
law of evidence
- estoppel
-
contract law
-
capacity to contract
- minority
-
capacity to contract
Judgement
Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (June 10, 1913) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya.
The suit was instituted by the first respondent against the appellant and defendants now joined as respondents, namely, Rani Chandra Deo and Rajeshwari. The claim was for a declaration of the plaintiffs title to the village of Badam under a deed of sale dated February 28, 1908, from Rajeshwari, for possession and other relief.
The facts are fully stated in the judgment of their Lordships.
The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. The High Court (Chatterjee and Newbould JJ.) reversed the decision, holding that the appellant was estopped by the conduct of his father, through whom he claimed, from denying the title of Rajeshwari.
1918. Feb. 26, 28. Dunne, K.C., and T. B. W. Ramsay, for the appellant. Having regard to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1884, Rajeshwari, and consequently the first respondent, obtained no title to the village. There being no registered deed of transfer from the late Raja, or the manager, to Kashinath, he was incompetent under s. 54 of that Act to transfer any title. By the terms of that section no title can arise by contract. No question of a gift was raised in the Courts below, the respondents case being founded on a title in Kashinath and a denial of the late Rajas title. Under s. 123, however, Rajeshwari could not obtain a good title by gift from the Raja in the absence of a registered transfer from him. The authorities are clear that between Hindus a transfer of possession is not sufficient. The policy of ss. 54 and 123 was to nullify every purported transfer not made in accordance with the Act. The first respondent took the conveyance from Rajeshwari without any reasonable inquiries and obtained no title under s. 41.
[Viscount Haldane. Was not the late Raja estopped from denying the title of Rajeshwari?]
Rajeshwari did not change her position in consequence of any representation by the late Raja, therefore no estoppel arose Indian Evidence Act (I. of 1872), s. 115. Sarat Chunder Dey v. Gopal Chunder Laha (( 1892) L. R. 19 1. A. 203.) was clearly a case of a representation acted on and a consequent change of position. Rajeshwari paid no consideration, and advanced no money on the faith of the representation, if there was one. If assuming liability for the revenue is a sufficient change of position, every donee of immovable property acquires a title by estoppel notwithstanding the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.
Further, the evidence established that Rajeshwari was a minor at the date of the transfer to the first respondent; he therefore took no title Transfer of Property Act, 1884, s. 7 ; Indian Contract Act, 1872,
s. 11.
Sir William Garth, for the first respondent, was not called upon.
March 18. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD DUNEDIN. In this suit Syed Abdullah sues the Raja of Deo for possession of a village called Badam. The plaintiff is purchaser from a dancing girl, Rajeshwari Koer, who is the natural daughter of the late Raja Bhikham of Deo, father of the present Raja, defendant.
The history of the matter is this Raja Bhikham having got into involved circumstances, his estate was put under management under the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, which had been made to apply to Deo by a special Act. The manager appointed under the Act one Bhuan Lal, who had, in terms of the Act powers of sale, put up to public auction the village of Badam. It was bought by Kashinath Singh for the sum of Rs.2000. As a matter of fact, Kashinath had been put forward by the Raja himself, who provided him with the money. No conveyance was executed by Bhuan Lal in favour of Kashinath, The management came to an end in 1896 and the Raja was restored to his estate. In 1897 the Raja, who had expressed his desire to benefit Munni Bibi, the mother of Rajeshwari, and his infant daughter by her, caused Lajjadhari, the adopte
