Published on: 24 September 2023 at 00:40 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Elumalai V. M. Kamala (2023)
Supreme Court of India has held that children are estopped from claiming share in the self-acquired property of their grandfather, if their father has already relinquished his rights in the said property for valuable consideration.
24. It will be noticed that the father of the appellants, by his conduct, being estopped, as found by us, is the fountainhead or the source of the title declared in Section 8(a) of the Hindu Succession Act. It is, in other words, only based on the relationship between Shri Chandran and the appellants, that the right under Section 8(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, purports to vest the right in the appellants. We would think, therefore, that appellants would also not be in a position to claim immunity from the operation of the Principle of Estoppel on the basis of Section 8(a) of the Hindu Succession Act.
If the principle in Gulam Abbas (supra) applies, then, despite the fact that what was purported to be released by Shri Chandran, was a mere spec succession is or expectation his conduct in transferring/releasing his rights for valuable consideration, would give rise to an estoppel.
The effect of the estoppel cannot be warded off by persons claiming through the person whose conduct has generated the estoppel. We also find no merit at all in the attempt at drawing a distinction based on religion. The principle of estoppel applies without such distinction.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra