Partition
Suit for partition—Denial of share in self-acquired property of grandfather—Appeal—Principle of estoppel—Father of appellants died before the death of their grandfather—Relinquishment deed made by father of appellants was based on his having received valuable consideration—Terms of released deed recites that father of appellants has released his share in respect of the property—Transfer by an heir apparent being mere spes successionis is ineffective to convey any right—Conjecturing that father of appellants has survived his father and his succession had opened intestate in regard to estate of his father, the conduct of executing the release deed though by itself may not have resulted in a lawful transfer, his conduct being accompanied by receipt of consideration would have stopped the father of appellants—Appellants rely upon prohibition against natural guardian of a Hindu minor, binding the minor by a personal covenant—It was not the case of appellants that they have any independent right in the plaint scheduled property at the time of their birth or at the time when their father died or even when their grandfather died—Right, which they claim, at the earliest point, can arise only by treating the property as the separate property of grandfather on his death within the meaning of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act—It cannot be discarded that the deed of release executed by their father in the year 1975 as a covenant within the meaning of Section 8 of the 1956 Act—Effect of estoppel cannot be warded off by persons claiming through the person whose conduct has generated the estoppel—Estoppel would shut out in equity any claim otherwise either by father of appellants or his children, viz., the appellants—No merit in appeals—Appeals dismissed. [Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 8; Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 8; Evidence Act, 1872, Section 115]
[Paras 9 to 24]