Shehammal v Hassan Khani Rawther (AIR 2011 SC 3609; (2011) 9 SCC 223)
Key point: Expectancy cannot be transferred (Section 6(a) TPA), yet estoppel (Section 115 Evidence Act) can bind an heir who took consideration.
Quick Summary
The Supreme Court explained two simple ideas. First, an expectancy to inherit is only a chance; it cannot be sold or given up before the ancestor dies (Section 6(a) TPA). Second, if an heir takes money and signs a relinquishment, the heir can be stopped by estoppel from later going back on that promise (Section 115 Evidence Act). Here, the relinquishment deeds were upheld.
Issues
- Can a Muslim heir legally renounce a future inheritance under personal law and the Transfer of Property Act?
- If an heir accepted consideration for relinquishing, can they later revoke it and still claim a share?
Rules
- Spes Successionis — Section 6(a), Transfer of Property Act, 1882: the chance of an heir-apparent cannot be transferred.
- Estoppel — Section 115, Evidence Act, 1872: a party who took benefit on a representation may be barred from denying it later.
- Public Policy — Section 23, Contract Act, 1872: courts disfavor outcomes that reward bad faith after accepting compensation.
Facts — Timeline
Optional
Arguments
Appellants (Heirs including Shehammal)
- Relinquishment of a future inheritance is void due to spes successionis (Sec 6(a) TPA).
- Oral gift was unproven; estate must devolve per Muslim law.
Respondent (Hasan Khani Rawther)
- Heirs accepted consideration; they are bound by estoppel (Sec 115 Evidence Act).
- Permitting withdrawal after payment offends public policy (Sec 23 Contract Act).
Judgment
SLPs dismissed — no order as to costs
- Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court.
- Relinquishment deeds were valid and binding as they were voluntary and for consideration.
- Spes successionis still applies in law, but estoppel can bar heirs who took money from later claiming a share.
- Public policy supports finality once compensation is accepted.
Ratio Decidendi
Although an heir cannot transfer a mere expectancy, a binding estoppel arises when the heir accepts consideration and executes a relinquishment. Such an heir cannot later resile and claim inheritance against that promise.
Why It Matters
- Gives certainty to family settlements and property partitions involving payment.
- Balances personal law rules with equitable estoppel to prevent unfair claims.
- Signals that courts protect good-faith transactions from later challenges.
Key Takeaways
- Expectancy ≠ transferable right (Sec 6(a) TPA).
- Money + promise = estoppel (Sec 115 Evidence Act).
- Public policy disfavors undoing compensated settlements (Sec 23 Contract Act).
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “Chance Not Cash Back”
- Chance: Expectancy can’t be transferred.
- Cash: If the heir takes money to settle…
- Back? No: Estoppel stops a later claim.
IRAC
| Issue | Are relinquishment deeds by Muslim heirs valid, and can heirs later claim despite receiving consideration? |
|---|---|
| Rule | Sec 6(a) TPA (expectancy non-transferable); Sec 115 Evidence Act (estoppel); Sec 23 Contract Act (public policy). |
| Application | Heirs executed deeds and took consideration. Even if expectancy couldn’t be transferred, estoppel bound them from retracting. |
| Conclusion | Relinquishment deeds upheld; SLPs dismissed; respondent’s title confirmed. |
Glossary
- Spes successionis
- A mere chance to inherit in the future; not a present, transferable right.
- Relinquishment
- A deed where an heir gives up a claim, often for consideration.
- Estoppel
- A bar that prevents a person from going back on a representation that others relied on.
FAQs
Related Cases
Cases on Spes Successionis
Judgments clarifying that a mere chance to inherit is outside transferable property.
Estoppel in Family Settlements
Decisions where consideration-backed settlements barred later claims.
Share
Related Post
Tags
Archive
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now