• Today: November 02, 2025

Shehammal v Hassan Khani Rawther

02 November, 2025
251
Shehammal v Hassan Khani Rawther (2011) — Muslim Inheritance, Spes Successionis & Estoppel | The Law Easy

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.

Supreme Court of India 2011 AIR 2011 SC 3609; (2011) 9 SCC 223 Inheritance / Property Spes Successionis 7–9 min read
Author: Gulzar Hashmi  • Location: India  • Published: 1 Nov 2025  • Slug: shehammal-v-hassan-khani-rawther
Hero image for Shehammal v Hassan Khani Rawther — inheritance and estoppel
```

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.

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Muslim inheritance; spes successionis; estoppel; Section 6(a) TPA; Section 115 Evidence Act SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: relinquishment; public policy Section 23; oral gift; intestate succession PUBLISH_DATE: 01-11-2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India

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 SuccessionisSection 6(a), Transfer of Property Act, 1882: the chance of an heir-apparent cannot be transferred.
  • EstoppelSection 115, Evidence Act, 1872: a party who took benefit on a representation may be barred from denying it later.
  • Public PolicySection 23, Contract Act, 1872: courts disfavor outcomes that reward bad faith after accepting compensation.

Facts — Timeline

Optional
Timeline for Shehammal v Hassan Khani Rawther
1986: Meeralava Rawther died intestate, leaving three sons and three daughters as heirs under Muslim law.
Respondent Hasan Khani Rawther claimed the entire estate based on an oral gift and relinquishment deeds from siblings.
Trial Court: Oral gift not proved. Shehammal’s right to her share recognized.
Kerala High Court: Reversed. Even without oral gift, relinquishment deeds made Hasan Khani owner.
Supreme Court (SLPs): Petitioners challenged the High Court judgment.

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
Judgment visual for Shehammal v Hassan Khani Rawther
  • 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

  1. Expectancy ≠ transferable right (Sec 6(a) TPA).
  2. Money + promise = estoppel (Sec 115 Evidence Act).
  3. Public policy disfavors undoing compensated settlements (Sec 23 Contract Act).

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: Chance Not Cash Back

  1. Chance: Expectancy can’t be transferred.
  2. Cash: If the heir takes money to settle…
  3. 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

No. It deals with a chance, not a right. Section 6(a) TPA bars such transfers.

Then estoppel can apply. The heir may be barred from later claiming a share.

No. But the Court still upheld title because the relinquishment deeds were binding.

Yes. After taking compensation, allowing a later claim would be unfair and against policy.

Expectancy is non-transferable, but a paid relinquishment can bind the heir by estoppel.
Inheritance Law Transfer of Property Act Evidence Act
```

Comment

Nothing for now