Where a grantor had purported to grant an interest in land, or transferred the land, over which he has no interest/title at that time, but subsequently acquires, the benefit of the subsequent acquisition goes automatically/instantly to the earlier grantee, which is usually expressed as "feeding the grant by estoppel". This principle is partly based on common law doctrine of estoppel by deed and partly on the equitable doctrine that a man who has promised more than what he can perform, must make good his promise whenever he acquires the power of performance. Whether this equitable doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel would apply to the facts of the case is the issue raised in the second appeal.

2. The second plaintiff is the appellant and the second defendant is the respondent. The first plaintiff is the mother and after her demise the second plaintiff has brought on record. The first defendant who is the husband and the second defendant who is the son of the first plaintiff have been recorded as the legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant also died.

3. The suit was filed by the deceased first plaintiff seeking the relief of injunction and alternatively for the relief of declaration, possession and damages of Rs.3,000/-equal to the value of crops taken away. The suit was dismissed. The appeal filed by the second plaintiff in A.S.No.84 of 1997 also met with the same result of dismissal. Challenging the dismissal, the second plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

4. Brief facts:

The suit properties were consisted of two items. Item No.1 was in R.S.No.16/1 covering an extent of 1 acre 50 cents. The second item was in R.S.No.73 covering an extent of 44 cents out of 1 acre 37 cents. The first plaintiff purchased the suit property from the first defendant by virtue of the sale deed dated 06.06.1961. Patta was in the name of the first plaintiff and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying kists.

5. The first item of the suit property was settled in favour of the second plaintiff on 25.03.1986 through a settlement deed. In the maintenance proceedings between the first plaintiff and the first defendant, the first defendant admitted the ownership of the suit properties and on that basis the suit for maintenance filed by the first plaintiff was dismissed. The second defendant also neglect and refused the first plaintiff. In an extent of 80 cents covering both the items casuarina had been planted and when it was seven year old plants it was cut and carried away by the defendants and the worth of Rs.3,000/-.

5.1. The first plaintiff died on 21.7.1986. Prior to that on 5.7.1986 the first plaintiff executed a Will in favour of the second plaintiff in respect of the second item of the property. The defendants were attempting to dispossess the second plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

6. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the following contentions:

1. The first plaintiff has no title to the suit properties. She did not purchase the property on 6.6.1961. She never paid any kist. She was not in possession of the property.

2. The truth and validity of the settlement deed dated 25.3.1986 has to be proved.

3. The truth and the validity of the Will dated 5.7.1986 is also disputed.

4. The defendants never attempted to trespass into the property, because they are in possession of the property it is they who planted in the casuarina crops. Therefore, there is no need to pay damage.

7. In respect of the suit properties there had been a prior litigation in O.S.No.69 of 1962 filed by Mari and Kattan claiming partition against the first defendant Paramasivam, first Plaintiff Pusanammal and one Perumal. The suit was decreed. The appeal filed in A.S.No.58 of 1964 and the second appeal filed in S.A.No.1098 of 1965 confirmed the decree passed by the trial court and the suit properties were allotted to the share of the first defendant. Therefore, first