Property Law

Shehammal v. Hassan Khani Rawther

AIR 2011 SC 3609; (2011) 9 SCC 223

Citation: AIR 2011 SC 3609; (2011) 9 SCC 223
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 2011
Bench: Supreme Court Bench

Facts

The dispute concerned property belonging to Meeralava Rawther, a Muslim owner.
During his lifetime, several of his children received money, property or assistance from him for settling themselves.
In return, they executed separate documents stating that they had received consideration and would not claim any share in his remaining property after his death.
At the time of executing those documents, the children had no vested share in their father’s property.
Their rights were only possible future rights of inheritance.
After the father died, disputes arose regarding partition of the remaining property.
Some heirs sought their shares despite the earlier relinquishment documents.
Hassan Khani Rawther relied on the documents and argued that those heirs could not claim again after accepting benefits in return for giving up their prospective claims.

Issue

Whether an heir can transfer or relinquish a possible future inheritance during the owner’s lifetime.
Whether an heir who accepted consideration for abandoning such a claim may later be prevented by estoppel from claiming inheritance.

Rule

Section 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act prohibits transfer of a mere chance of succession, known as spes successionis.
Under Muslim law also, an heir obtains no vested interest in an ancestor’s property while the ancestor is alive.
Therefore, a purported transfer or release of future inheritance does not itself convey property.
Nevertheless, equitable estoppel may apply where:
the expectant heir accepts a benefit or consideration;
represents that no later claim will be made;
causes another person to alter their position; and
later attempts to contradict that representation.

Application

The Court maintained the distinction between transfer of expectancy and estoppel based on conduct.
The children could not legally transfer shares which did not yet exist.
Their father remained full owner during his lifetime and could:
sell the property;
gift it;
otherwise dispose of it; or
leave nothing for inheritance.
Consequently, the relinquishment deeds did not operate as present conveyances of ownership.
However, the heirs had not merely made gratuitous or casual statements.
They had accepted benefits from their father on the clear understanding that those benefits settled their future expectations.
Their conduct represented that they would not later demand another share from the remaining estate.
Other family members arranged their affairs on that basis.
Allowing the heirs to retain the earlier benefit and also claim inheritance would permit them to:
approbate and reprobate;
deny their previous representation; and
obtain a double benefit.
The Court explained that Muslim law does not prevent application of general equitable principles where an expectant heir’s conduct makes it unjust to permit a later inconsistent claim.
Estoppel did not validate the transfer of spes successionis.
Instead, after inheritance opened, it prevented the particular heir from asserting the newly acquired right contrary to the earlier representation.
The surrounding circumstances, consideration and reliance were therefore decisive. A bare declaration without consideration or reliance would not necessarily produce the same result.

Conclusion

A mere chance of Muslim inheritance cannot be transferred during the ancestor’s lifetime.
The relinquishment deeds did not themselves convey future ownership.
Nevertheless, heirs who knowingly accepted consideration and induced others to rely on their promise were estopped from later asserting inconsistent inheritance claims.
The claims contrary to the earlier settlement were rejected.