• Services For Users/Clients
      • Business Registrations
      • GST Registration (Person)
      • GST Registration (Company)
      • Importer Exporter Code
      • Trade License
      • FSSAI Registration
      • Udyog Aadhaar/MSME Registration
      • Shops & Establishments Registration
      • Partnership Firm Registration
      • Private Limited Company Registration
      • Producer Company Registration
      • Instant Legal Advise
      • Instant Legal Research Advisory (By Video Meet - 30 Mins)
      • Instant Legal Research Advisory (By Phone - 30 Mins)
      • Instant Legal Research Advisory (By Email)
      • Case Status & Case Analysis (By Video Meet - 30 Mins)
      • Case Status & Case Analysis (By Phone - 30 Mins)
      • Case Status & Analysis (By Email)
      • Contracts & Agreements
      • Business Contracts & Agreements
      • Vetting Contracts & Agreements
      • Content Paraphrasing
      • Legal Translation/Transcription
      • Affidavits, Notary, Wills & POAs
      • Affidavit
      • Notary
      • Will
      • Codicil
      • General Power of Attorney
      • Special Power of Attorney
      • Attestation
      • Legal Research & Judgement Analysis
      • Judgments Search
      • Related Judgements Analysis
      • Laws/Reports/Acts Search
      • Judgment Summary
      • Pleadings & Petitions Analysis
      • Trial Courts & Dist Forums
      • High Courts & State Forums
      • Supreme Court & National Forums
      • Application Analysis
      • Exhibits Analysis
      • Evidence Analysis
  • Services For Lawyers
      • Online Office & Case Management
      • Assisted Online Case(s) & Calendar Management
      • Assisted Online Billing & Invoicing Assistance
      • Assistance in Recruiting Associates, Juniors, Staff
      • Assistance in Recruiting Interns
      • Translation, Transcription & Typing
      • Legal Translation/Transcription
      • On-call Typing
      • Typing
      • Trial Preparation
      • Opening & Closing Statements
      • Pointers & Charts
      • Drafting & Document Management
      • Drafting Contracts & Agreements
      • Vetting Contracts & Agreements
      • Document Conversion (Jpeg to Word/PDF, PDF to Word etc)
      • Content Paraphrasing
      • Drafting Wills/POAs/GPA/SPA/Affidavits
      • Legal Research
      • Judgment search
      • Laws, Acts & Reports Search
      • Judgment Summary
      • Related Judgments Search
      • Pleadings & Petitions Drafting
      • Petition/Plaint/Objections/Rejoinder drafting - Trial Courts & Dist Forums
      • Petition/Plaint/Objections/Rejoinder drafting - High Courts & State Forums
      • Petition/Plaint/Objections/Rejoinder drafting - Supreme Court & National Forums
      • Applications & Affidavits drafting
      • Petition/Plaint/Objections/Rejoinder Proof Reading
      • Indexing & Table of contents
      • Preparing & Marking Exhibits
      • E Filing
  • +91 9632247247
  • Sign In/Sign Up
Menu
  • +Users/Clients Back

    • Get Fee Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
    • Get A Dedicated Legal Assistant
  • +Lawyers

    • Display Boards
    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Petitions & Pleadings Templates
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
    • Get A Dedicated Legal Secretary
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • Legal News
  • Exceptions to the Doctrine of Spes Successionis: Shehammal v. Hasan Khani Rawther & Ors.

Latest News

Back

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Spes Successionis: Shehammal v. Hasan Khani Rawther & Ors.

Courtesy/By: Ashwin Satheesh  |  24 Nov 2020     Views:229

The doctrine of spes successionis can be avoided in cases of family arrangements or relinquishment for consideration

Citation: (2011) 9 SCC 223

Date of Judgement: 02/08/2011

 

Factual background:

The doctrine of spes successionis entails that the mere fact that one is entitled to succeed to a certain share in the property (a future right), does not validate the transfer of that right even before it has materialized.

Meeralava Rawther died intestate in 1986, leaving behind 3 sons and 3 daughters. At the time of his death, he owned 1.7 acres of land in Thodupuzha, Kerala. Being a Mohammedan, his children were entitled to specific shares as tenants in common. The division of property would ideally have been such that each son would receive 2/9th, and each daughter 1/9th.

However, all of Meeralava’s children except for one, Hasan Khani Rawther (the respondent), executed a deed with the father relinquishing their rights over the property in exchange for consideration, as they left the family home.

In 1992, the respondent filed an original suit before a Court of Subordinate Judge seeking a declaration of the property and title in his name alone as he claimed that his father had executed an oral gift in 1982. His siblings later filed suits seeking an injunction against his claim whereas Shehammal (petitioner) filed for a partition of the property. The learned judge of the Trial Court dismissed the respondent’s suit due to the lack of evidence surrounding the oral gift and passed a decree in favour of the petitioner.

The respondent filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala who set aside the order of the Trial Court and asked for the case to be heard on merits. Upon remand, the Trial Court yet again passed a decree in favour of the petitioner as it was dissatisfied with the gift deed’s story. The respondent hence filed an appeal before a Single Judge Bench of the Kerala High Court whereby it was viewed that though the respondent had failed to prove the oral gift, he would be the sole inheritor as the others had relinquished their rights through deeds.

The present matter before the Supreme Court was a Special Leave Petition filed by Shehammal against the order of the Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dated 18/10/2007.

 

Issues:

  1. Whether a deed of relinquishment by an expectant heir can operate as an estoppel against the heir once the property opens up for inheritance in light of the Doctrine of spes successionis and Section 54 of Principles of Mohammedan law by Mulla.
  2. Whether an expectant heir can be estopped from claiming share after executing a deed of relinquishment in exchange for consideration for that share.
  3. Can a Mohammedan relinquish the right of inheritance by way of a family arrangement even before acquiring the right in the property?

 

Arguments advanced:

The counsel for the petitioners held that the impugned order had erred in its understanding of relinquishment among Muslims as it failed to consider spes successionis in Section 54 of Mullla’s principles of Mohammedan law which holds that a Muslim cannot relinquish an expected share in the property. This was based on the principle that Mohammedan law has not recognized the expectancy of inheritance during the lifetime of the owner and that the same would open only after his death. Section 54 by Mulla was said to be in para materia to Section 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) which conveys that the chance of a person succeeding to a property cannot be transferred. Thus all the deeds of relinquishment were to be null and void.

The High Court’s decision was found on its interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in Gulam Abbas v. Haji Kayyum Ali, (1973) 1 SCC 1. It was submitted that the execution of a deed per se would not prevent heirs from receiving their share as it would have to look into the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties. They thus contended that the decision was wrongly interpreted. The impugned order had further recognized each deed executed by the children during the time of their respective marriages to constitute a “family arrangement” and the same was contended to be erred as they were distinct deeds. Such an interpretation led to the reliance on the decision in Latafat Husain v. Hidayat Husain, AIR 1936 All 573, which considered binding family agreements to operate as estoppels.

The respondents argued that the Court had to adopt a consistent approach concerning relinquishment and subsequent estoppel, as any view to the contrary would violate Section 23 of the Indian Contracts Act by being opposed to public policy. They submitted that Sections 6 and 54 of the distinct laws were meant to protect a Muslim’s right to succeed to property but made no reference as to its applicability when that right had been waived away for consideration. It was thus contended that the bar on spes successionis was not absolute and entailed certain exceptions.

 

Judgement:

An essential principle of the Mohammedan law of inheritance is that it does not recognize a transfer of a spes successionis. The Division Bench fundamentally considered the relevant provisions of law as raised by the parties. Section 54 of the Principles of Mohammedan law provides that the transfer of a chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate is not valid. The principle also terms it as the “Renunciation of chance of succession”.

A similar provision lies under Section 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as it expressly precludes such transfers from the ambit of valid transfers. It was held that Section 6(a) would have to be read in consonance with Section 2 of the Act which provides that none of the clauses given under the Act shall affect any rule of Mohammedan law.

The Court then correlated the notion of relinquishment to the principle of Estoppel as stated in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). Section 115 lists the principle that if anyone causes another to believe something is true, then he shall not deny it at a later stage. This essentially meant a clash between the Doctrine of Estoppel and the Doctrine of Spes successionis while posing the question as to which would prevail. It was recognized that a personal law and a general law made it succinctly clear that a transfer of spes successionis would not be valid whereas the Doctrine of Estoppel under Section 115 of the IEA was to the contrary.

  • Interpretation of the decision in Gulam Abbas v. Haji Kayyum Ali

The decision in Gulam Abbas emphasized on the verdict in Khanum Jan v. Jan Beebee, 1827 4 SDA 210, to hold that renunciation implies yielding up of a right already vested. The fundamental principle being, one could not give up a right that had not materialized. Nonetheless, the judgement in Gulam Abbas held that an heir could portray certain conduct that could stop him/her from claiming rights when the property opens up for inheritance. Thus, renunciation of a supposed right based on expectancy in exchange for another agreement couldn’t be barred. The Apex Court in that matter hence penned that the Doctrine of Equitable estoppel was not against the principles of Mohammedan law but rather in harmony with it.

The principle of law was thus inferred to be that spes successionis could be avoided in cases of family arrangements or by accepting consideration in exchange for that future share, thus estopping the petitioner and her other siblings. The Court upheld that the impugned order had been formed on various precedents as well as on principles laid by jurists as it held that despite the application of spes successionis, the parties, in this case, had acted in a manner that estopped them from claiming that benefit.

  • The validity of relinquishment under Mohammedan law:

The SC connected this concept of relinquishment to Section 118 of Mulla’s principles that imposes a limitation on testamentary power. The section bars a Mohammedan from disposing of more than 1/3 of the surplus of his estate after payment of funeral debts and expenses. However, bequests beyond that limit may take place if his heirs consent to the same after his death. This meant that the limit under Section 118 could be surpassed by taking the consent of all the heirs. The Division Bench incorporated this principle as a corollary to the present matter as one permitted relinquishment with consent whereas the other seemingly barred it.

  • Decision:

Concerning the question of “family arrangement”, the learned judge concurred to the opinions of the counsel for the petitioner as there were 5 distinct deeds that were individual agreements. To constitute a family arrangement would mean that the decision was arrived at jointly which was not the matter in this case.

Nonetheless, the conduct of the petitioner and her other siblings was such that they had relinquished their rights over the property through their deeds and the Doctrine of Estoppel had stepped into effect to prohibit them from taking an unfair advantage over the right. The Doctrine of Estoppel would prevail over that of spes successionis in this regard as the petitioner's actions had waived her right over the property. The Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions as the petitioner was estopped from availing the benefit of spes successionis which would otherwise vitiate public policy. Moreover, this dismissed any need to prove the validity of the oral gift deed as the respondent was entitled to succeed to the entire share.


Document:


Courtesy/By: Ashwin Satheesh  |  24 Nov 2020     Views:229

News Updates

Delhi HC issues notice on petition challenging Ins...
18 Jan 2021     Views:47
Petition before the Supreme Court challenges All-I...
18 Jan 2021     Views:71
Person unable to find a surety can take benefit of...
18 Jan 2021     Views:45
Delhi High Court Stays Mohit Saraf's Termination F...
18 Jan 2021     Views:45
If The Parties Agrees To Admit To Talaq Without An...
18 Jan 2021     Views:43
Patients cannot be deprived of treatment due to ex...
18 Jan 2021     Views:64
Seventeen Sub Judges Appointed as District Judges ...
18 Jan 2021     Views:44
State of Gujarat liable to pay Rs.25,000 for its i...
17 Jan 2021     Views:47
A Person Can Be Discharged on Bail Under Sec. 445 ...
17 Jan 2021     Views:68
MP High Court Adjourns Hearing In Comedian Munawar...
17 Jan 2021     Views:53
Notice Issued By Delhi High Court To The Center In...
17 Jan 2021     Views:49
Calcutta High Court Issues Contempt Notice To The ...
17 Jan 2021     Views:169
Delhi High Court Allows Reopening of Spas, Wellnes...
17 Jan 2021     Views:41
WhatsApp messages to hold evidentiary value only u...
17 Jan 2021     Views:66
FIR Registered Against Over 10 People For Compromi...
17 Jan 2021     Views:59
Delhi HC hikes amount of compensation to parents o...
17 Jan 2021     Views:59
BSES-RPL liable for damages not on basis of proof ...
16 Jan 2021     Views:68
Reconsider decision to physical hearing: Letter to...
16 Jan 2021     Views:55
Disclosure of interest in the information sought u...
16 Jan 2021     Views:78
Stay Order Issued Against GST Notice Served on Adv...
16 Jan 2021     Views:62
Karnataka Government directed to reconsider circul...
15 Jan 2021     Views:57
Karnataka District Courts to resume normal functio...
15 Jan 2021     Views:49
Constitutional Rights is at Stake: Kerala HC on De...
15 Jan 2021     Views:51
Same gender sexual harassment cases maintainable u...
15 Jan 2021     Views:82
The Delhi High Court issues notice in petition reg...
15 Jan 2021     Views:66
The state is not ready to deal with the demographi...
15 Jan 2021     Views:64
Mandatory investigation of all custodial deaths: N...
15 Jan 2021     Views:61
Accused should be subjected to blood test or breat...
15 Jan 2021     Views:73
Order Terminating Arbitration Proceedings Under Se...
15 Jan 2021     Views:83
Allahabad High Court tells UP government to come u...
15 Jan 2021     Views:89
Cannot Maintain Writ Petition Against Purely Priva...
14 Jan 2021     Views:54
Plea seeking live streaming of open court proceedi...
14 Jan 2021     Views:40
Calcutta High Court : Have the power to set aside ...
14 Jan 2021     Views:58
11 Benches of the Delhi High Court to resume physi...
14 Jan 2021     Views:48
The prudent citizen should abide by the order of t...
14 Jan 2021     Views:45
Parking facilities in malls liable to pay service ...
14 Jan 2021     Views:112
Madras High Court indicates close nexus between ri...
14 Jan 2021     Views:62
SEBI Boycotts Anchor Hemant Gahi, His Wife And His...
14 Jan 2021     Views:141
Supreme Court registers Suo moto case on “Remed...
14 Jan 2021     Views:246
Mandatory publication of notice inviting objection...
14 Jan 2021     Views:59
Directions issued towards timely service of notic...
13 Jan 2021     Views:50
Delhi HC allows termination of pregnancy after 20 ...
13 Jan 2021     Views:44
Andhra Pradesh High Court Suspends Schedule For Lo...
13 Jan 2021     Views:50
Delhi High Court Upholds The Constitutionality Of...
13 Jan 2021     Views:46
Progress in Sonu Sood's Plea Against BMC Notice: B...
13 Jan 2021     Views:45
Supreme Court Dismisses The Plea Against The High ...
13 Jan 2021     Views:57
Central Government notifies establishment of Natio...
13 Jan 2021     Views:79
Criminal liability of non-political executives can...
13 Jan 2021     Views:55
Rs. 20,000 Costs Imposed on Defendant who Cited th...
13 Jan 2021     Views:58
Notice issued to centre by Karnataka HC on plea ch...
13 Jan 2021     Views:173
Supreme Court refuses to entertain special leave p...
13 Jan 2021     Views:62
Sexual harassment on digital platform constitutes ...
13 Jan 2021     Views:65
SC refuses to set aside conviction, life term of 7...
13 Jan 2021     Views:51
SC directs demolition of a hotel-cum-restaurant in...
12 Jan 2021     Views:58
Delhi HC quashes GST order to attach bank account ...
12 Jan 2021     Views:46
CBDT declines extension of due dates for filing re...
12 Jan 2021     Views:48
Calcutta High Court imposes cost on defendant for ...
12 Jan 2021     Views:53
The Counter Affidavit Filed In The Supreme Court B...
12 Jan 2021     Views:53
Allahabad High Court to Decide on Plea for Relaxat...
12 Jan 2021     Views:46
Stay on Kerala HC’s order of setting aside the a...
12 Jan 2021     Views:48
High Court arrest should be the last option and sh...
12 Jan 2021     Views:75
Delhi HC issues notice on plea seeking child marri...
12 Jan 2021     Views:58
India proposes a Pre-packaged Insolvency Resolutio...
12 Jan 2021     Views:83
NCLT allows Josco to reduce share capital structur...
12 Jan 2021     Views:67
Kerala High Court Unhappy With DOC's Enquiry Into ...
12 Jan 2021     Views:67
Supreme Court acquits accused on death row, deems ...
12 Jan 2021     Views:70
Non-payment of Stamp duty on commercial contract d...
12 Jan 2021     Views:74
Supreme Court to stay on implementation of Farm la...
12 Jan 2021     Views:60
Karkardooma Court denies bail to woman accused of ...
12 Jan 2021     Views:62
Right to have access to drinking water cannot be d...
12 Jan 2021     Views:136
Ordinance for Religious Conversions Passed by Madh...
11 Jan 2021     Views:63
Death row of Balwant Singh Rajoana will be decided...
11 Jan 2021     Views:54
There Should Be No Criminal Contempt - Justice Mad...
11 Jan 2021     Views:60
Supreme Court examines whether it is necessary to ...
11 Jan 2021     Views:59
Force Majeure Clause Allowed to Suspend Payments M...
11 Jan 2021     Views:67
Scope for Interpretation of Covid-19 Duty Insuranc...
11 Jan 2021     Views:61
Exercising PT Order to keep prisoners in detention...
11 Jan 2021     Views:64
Plea in Delhi HC seeking directions for exempting ...
11 Jan 2021     Views:130
The Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Ordinance, ...
11 Jan 2021     Views:76
Sonu Sood Moves Bombay High Court Against BMC Noti...
10 Jan 2021     Views:71
Blocking of Public High Ways and Roads Caused by F...
10 Jan 2021     Views:48
Victims Of 1975 Emergency Move Supreme Court Seeki...
10 Jan 2021     Views:97
Trials delayed endlessly due to deliberate absence...
10 Jan 2021     Views:69
Review petitions against the Aadhar Project to be ...
10 Jan 2021     Views:67
Gujarat HC directs CBDT to take decision to extend...
10 Jan 2021     Views:78
Madras High Court permits conduct of Kanuparivetta...
10 Jan 2021     Views:92
Review petition filed in the Supreme Court against...
10 Jan 2021     Views:69
All the subordinate courts shall start functionin...
10 Jan 2021     Views:66
Arrest Only the Last Resort: Allahabad High Court...
10 Jan 2021     Views:93
A Division Bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and ...
10 Jan 2021     Views:58
Patna High Court suspends Chief Judicial Magistrat...
10 Jan 2021     Views:111
Karnataka High Court strikes down rules of KMMCR a...
10 Jan 2021     Views:63
Bar Council of Delhi increases enrolment fee effec...
10 Jan 2021     Views:68
Tamil Nadu Government Withdraws January 4 GO: Iss...
09 Jan 2021     Views:60
Ebrahim Kunju Gets Bail from Kerala High Court in ...
09 Jan 2021     Views:57
Have not issued guidelines directing people to wea...
09 Jan 2021     Views:61
Bombay High Court shows concern over difficulty to...
09 Jan 2021     Views:70
Calcutta High Court to allow home imprisonment of ...
09 Jan 2021     Views:60
Amicable Settlement can be a factor for reducing t...
09 Jan 2021     Views:60
Bail Granted After Injuries Were Caused by Jail Au...
09 Jan 2021     Views:55
FIND A LAWYER




FIND A LAW SCHOOL



Most Read News Articles

  • Misusing Religion for Electoral Gains: PIL in SC for Action against Parties, Candidates
    On 31 May 2018    Views:11965
  • Bci Directs To Supply Of The Details Of Every Practising Advocate As Per The Format Required By The E-committee Of The Supreme Court Of India.
    On 01 Aug 2020    Views:11220
  • DOCTRINE OF ELECTION UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
    On 08 Jul 2020    Views:10504
  • Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt
    On 22 Jul 2020    Views:10067
  • Sabrimala Verdict (28 sept 2018) - A End of Taboo.
    On 07 Oct 2020    Views:7758
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile
  • Demo My Legal Assistant
  • Demo My Legal Secretary

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Campus Ambassadors
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1122 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.