AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITIEE versus BANNAMA (D) BY LRS.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITIEE versus BANNAMA (D) BY LRS.

The doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel does not apply where the vendor (plaintiff's son) never acquired title in the suit property during his lifetime. Since the property was the 'Stridhan' of the plaintiff and her son only sold it by false representation, and never became owner, subsequent inheritance by his children does not validate the sale. Decrees of trial court and High Court in favour of plaintiff are confirmed.

Parties
Appellant/defendant No.1: Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee; Respondent/plaintiff: Bannama (D) by LRs.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court: Appeal Against High Court Judgment in Second Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Transfer of Property, Stridhan Property, Estoppel, Hindu Succession Act
Property Law Succession Law Transfer of Property Stridhan Property Estoppel Hindu Succession Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee

Appellant/defendant No.1

Bannama (D) by LRs.

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court: Appeal Against High Court Judgment in Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale of 'Stridhan' property by plaintiff's son without her consent conveyed title to purchaser?
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel under s.43 of the Transfer of Property Act applies where vendor never acquired title during his lifetime?
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff's legal heirs (grandchildren) are bound by the sale executed by their father under the principle of estoppel?

Ratio Decidendi

The doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel does not apply where the vendor (plaintiff's son) never acquired title in the suit property during his lifetime. Since the property was the 'Stridhan' of the plaintiff and her son only sold it by false representation, and never became owner, subsequent inheritance by his children does not validate the sale. Decrees of trial court and High Court in favour of plaintiff are confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment and order of High Court in second appeal decreeing the suit of plaintiff is affirmed.
  • Appellant's claim for validation of sale under Section 43 is rejected.