Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Elumalai @ Venkatesan & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
M. Kamala and Ors. & Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 521-522 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.14948-14949 of 2017)
Decided On : 25-01-2023
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 8(a) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 6(a) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 115 – Partition of self-acquired property – A living man has no heir – Equally, a person who may become heir and entitled to succeed under law upon death of his relative would not have any right until succession to estate is opened up – When grand-father of appellants was alive, his son had at best a spes successionis – Unlike a coparcener who acquires right to joint family property by his mere birth, in regard to separate property of Hindu, no such right exists – Release Deed may not by itself have effect of a transfer of the rights of father of plaintiffs in favour of either his father or minor son of his father from second marriage – Father of plaintiffs was only a heir apparent – Transfer by an heir apparent being mere spes successionis is ineffective to convey any right – By mere execution of Release Deed no transfer took place – Transferor (Father of appellants) did not have any right at all which he could transfer or relinquish – Very fact that grand-father of appellants did not execute any document by way of Will only shows that he proceeded on the basis that branch represented by his son was being cut-off from inheritance from property in question – Father of appellants, by his conduct, being estopped, appellants would also not be in a position to claim immunity from operation of Principle of Estoppel on the basis of Section 8(a) of Hindu Succession Act – Effect of estoppel cannot be warded-off by persons claiming through person whose conduct has generated estoppel – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 10, 14, 16, 23, 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Controversy in this case relates to A-Schedule property in suit for partition filed by two children out of 6 children born to grand-father of appellants from his second marriage. Property in dispute was self-acquired property of grand-father of appellants. In regard to said property, father of appellants had executed a Release Deed.
Findings of Court:
Having received valuable consideration and allowed his father Shri Sengalani Chettair to proceed on the basis that he was free to deal with the property without the prospect of being haunted by any claim whatsoever as regards the property by Shri Chandran, a clear estoppel sprang into existence following the receipt of consideration by Shri Chandran. Estoppel would shut out in equity any claim otherwise either by Shri Chandran or his children, viz., the appellants.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Key Points: - The Release Deed executed by Chandran was void because he held only a potential right to the property; (!) (!) - The property was the separate property of Sengalani Chettiar and vested to the heirs only upon his death in 1988; (!) (!) - The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Release Deed did not transfer any right; (!) - Estoppel arose from Chandran’s receipt of valuable consideration for the Release Deed, preventing him and his heirs from claiming any right to the property; (!) (!) (!) - The appellants, as Class‑I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, could have a claim, but estoppel bars that claim in this case; (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. One Shri Sengalani Chettiar was married to one Rukmini. The said marriage produced a son, namely, Shri Chandran. The appellants are the sons of Shri Chandran. Sengalani Chettiar married again this time with one Smt. Kuppammal. From the second marriage Sengalani Chettiar had 5 daughters and a son. The controversy in this case relates to A-Schedule property in the suit for partition filed by two children out of the 6 children born to Sengelani Chettiar from his second marriage. The property in dispute was the self-acquired property of Shri Sengalani Chettiar. In regard to the said property, Chandran,the father of the appellants had executed a Release Deed. The terms of the Release Deed dated 12.11.1975, are as follows :
THIS DEED OF RELEASE is executed on the 12th day of November, 1975 in favour of 1. C.Sengalani Chettiar, son of Singara Chettiar, residing at No.144, Venkatachala Mudali Street Meersapet, Mylapore, Chennai, 2. Sengalani Chettiar, as the guardian of his minor son, Vinayagarnurthy, aged about 2 years, this deed executed by S.Chandran, son of Sengalani Chettiar, residing at No.19, Santha Sahib Street, Meersapet, Mylapore, Chennai is as follows :
I am the son of your first wife. As I could not be with you, I had received through the transfer of mortgage gold jewellery which is worth of Rs. 10,000/- and the materials of a value of Rs.5000 /- and releasing my share in respect of the house sites situate at Manamathi Village, which belong to us and more particularly described in the schedule hereunder, through this document on this day. The mortgage amount of Rs.10,500/- as against the above said house site, shall be settled by you. Hereafter we do not have any other connection except blood relation.
In this manner I had execute this Deed of Release.
3. As destiny would have it, Shri Chandran passed away on 09.12.1978. Sengalani Chettiar died on 19.01.1988. The second wife of Sengalani Chettiar, Smt. Kuppammal breathed her last on 25.08.2005. O.S. No.8173 of 2006 came to be filed by one Uma Ravi Chandran and Vinayaga Murthy, who were, as already noticed, children of Sengalani Chettiar from his second marriage. Defendants 1 to 3 were the other daughters of Sengalani Chettiar from the second marriage. The appellants were subsequently impleaded as defendants 4 and 5. Defendant No.6 came to be impleaded as such and he is the son of the deceased daughter of Sengalani Chettiar from the second marriage.
4. The case of the plaintiffs to exclude the appellants was based on the Release Deed executed by the father of the appellants. The trial Court however found that the Release Deed in question was a void document for the reason that Chandran executed the Release Deed in 1975 while his father Sengalani Chettiar was alive. It is found that the Release Deed would not be a bar for the appellants to inherit the property of their grandfather Sengalani Chettiar. The plaintiffs were only found to be eligible to get only 2/7 share. Plaintiffs were accordingly given a decree of 2/7 share inter alia. The suit came to be dismissed as far as ‘B’ schedule property is concerned. Plaintiffs filed AS No.883 OF 2009. Defendants 1, 3 and 6 filed appeal AS No.718 of 2009. By the impugned judgment the High court has allowed these appeals and found that the appellants were not entitled to claim any share in the property of the deceased Sengalani Chettiar. The foundational premise for overturning the decree of the trial court was furnished by the dicta laid down by this court in Gulam Abbas v. Haji Kayyam Ali and others, AIR 1973 SC 554. Briefly put, the premise is that insofar as Shri Chandran executed a deed of Release having obtained consideration from his father, the appellants would stand estopped from laying a claim to a share in A-Schedule property. The court also noticed the death of the second plaintiff and found that the first plaintiff and her siblings namely, defendants 1 to 3 alone would entitled
(1) Partition of self-acquired property – A living man has no heir – Transfer by an heir apparent being mere spes successionis is ineffective to convey any right.(2) Estoppel – Effect of estoppel can....
The court clarified the distinction between 'Release' and 'Conveyance', emphasizing existing rights in property under the Indian Stamp Act and the Hindu Succession Act.
Court elevated mother to an equal position as father, bolstering her right as a natural guardian of minor child under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Adoption Act, 1956.
Mother can act as natural guardian of minor and all her actions would be valid even during lifetime of father.
(1) Karta may alienate joint family property for value, either for legal necessity or for benefit of estate, to bind interests of all undivided members of family, whether they are adults or minors or....
Point of law : As Section 15 of the Act opens with the words “The property of the female Hindu dying intestate” shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16, necessarily Section 15 has ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
