Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)
Gulam Abbas vs Haji Kayyum Ali & Ors on 18 September, 1972 cites

Abdul Kafoor And Anr. vs Abdul Razack And Anr. on 18 April, 1958

The Madras High Court, in Abdul Kapoor's case (supra) had specifically dissented from the Allahabad view in Latafat Hussain' case (supra) on the ground that, if an estoppel was allowed to pleaded as a defence, on the strength of relinquishment of a spes successionis for consideration, the effect could be to permit the pro visions of Mahomedan Law to be defeated. Hence, it held that such an attempt would be struck by section 23 of the Indian Con tract Act. The object however, of the rule of Mahomedan law which does not recognise a purported transfer of a spes succession is as a legally valid transfer at all, is not to prohibit anything but only to make it clear what is and what is not a transferable right or interest in property just as this is what section 6(a) of Transfer of Property Act is meant to do. Its purpose could not be to protect those who receive consideration for what they do not immediately have so as to be able to transfer it at all. It could, if protection of any party to a transaction could possibly underlie such a rule, be more the protection of possible transfers so that they may know what is and what is not a legally enforceable transfer. With due respect, we are unable to concur with the view of the Madras High Court that renunciation of an expectancy, as a purported but legally ineffective transfer, is struck by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. As it would be void as a transfer at all there was no need to rely on Section 23 Contract Act, If there was no "transfer". of property at all, which was the correct position but a simple contract, which could only operate in future, it was certainly, not intended to bring about an immediate transfer which was all that the rule of Muslim law invalidated. The real question was whether quite apart from any transfer or contract, the declarations in the deeds of purported relinquishment and receipt of valuable consideration could not be parts of a course of conduct over a number of years which, taken as a whole, created a, bar against a successful assertion of a right to property when that Tight actually came' into being. An equitable estoppel operates, if its elements are established, as a rule of evidence preventing the assertion of rights which may otherwise exist. (1) A.F.R. 1964 Kerala P. 200 (2) A I R. 1936 All. 573. (3) A.I.R. 1956 Travancore 217.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Latafat Husain And Ors. vs Hidayat Husain And Ors. on 15 January, 1936

Defendant No. 4, upon the totality of facts found by the final Court of facts, which were apparently accepted by the High Court,, it is not necessary for us to deal at length with the question whether the facts found could give rise to the inference of a "family settlement" in a technical sense. It is true that in Latafat Hussain's case (supra) Suleman, C.J., had observed that the conclusion of the Subordinate Court, that there had been an arrangement between a husband and a wife "in the nature of a family settlement which is binding on the plaintiff", was correct. This was held upon circumstances which indicated that a husband would not have executed a deed of Wakf if the wife had not relinquished her claim, to inheritance. In other words, an arrangement which may avoid future disputes in the family, even though it may not technically be a settlement or definition of actually disputed claims, was referred to broadly as a "family arrangement". It was in this wide sense that in the case before us also, the first Appellate Court had considered the whole set of facts and circumstances examined by it to be sufficient to raise the inference of what it described as a "family settlement".
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1