Civil Appeal No 207 of 1956
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated November 5 1952 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No 852 of 1948
R Thiagarajan and G Gopalakrishnan for the appellant
Ganapathy Iyer for respondent No 3 1962
January 11
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR J
This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Madras dismissing the suit filed by the appellant as Muthavalli of the Jumma Masjid Mercara for possession of a half share in the properties specified in the plaint
The facts are not in dispute
There was a joint family consisting of three brothers Santhappa Nanjundappa and Basappa
Of these Santhappa died unmarried Basappa died in 1901 leaving behind a widow Gangamma and Najundappa died in 1907 leaving him surviving his widow Ammakka who succeeded to all the family properties as his heir
On the death of Ammakka which took place in 1910 the estate devolved on Basappa Mallappa and Santhappa the sister s grandsons of 557 Nanjundappa as his next reversioners
The relationship of the parties is shown in the following genealogical table
Basappa      Santhappa Nanjundappa Basappa Mallammal d 1907 d 1901  Ammakka Gangamma  d1910   Ramegowda Mallegowda       Basappa Mallappa Santhappa On August 5 1900 Nanjundappa and Basappa executed a usufructuary mortgage over the properties which form the subject matter of this litigation and one Appanna Shetty having obtained an assignment thereof filed a suit to enforce it OS 9 of 1903 in the court of the Subordinate Judge Coorg
That ended in a compromise decree which provided that Appanna Shetty was to enjoy the usufruct from the hypotheca till August 1920 in full satisfaction of all his claims under the mortgage and that the properties were thereafter to revert to the family of the mortgagors
By a sale deed dated November 18 1920 exhibit III the three reversioners Basappa Nallappa and Santhappa sold the suit properties to one Ganapathi under whom the respondents claim for a consideration of Rs 2000
Therein the vendors recite that the properties in question belonged to the joint family of Nanjundappa and his brother Basappa that on the death of Nanjundappa Ammakka inherited them as his widow and on her death they had devolved on them as the next reversioners of the last male 558 owner
On March 12 1921 the vendors executed another deed exhibit IV by which exhibit III was rectified by inclusion of certain items of properties which were stated to have been left out by oversight
It is on these documents that the title of the respondents rests
On the strength of these two deeds Ganapathi sued to recover possession of the properties comprised therein
The suit was contested by Gangamma who claimed that the properties in question were the self acquisitions of her husband Basappa and that she as his heir was entitled to them
The Subordinate Judge of Coorg who tried the suit accepted this contention and his finding was affirmed by the District Judge on appeal and by the Judicial Commissioner in second appeal
But before the second appeal was finally disposed of Gangamma died on February 17 1933
Thereupon Ganapathi applied to the revenue authorities to transfer the patta for the lands standing in the name of Gangamma to his own name in accordance with the sale deed exhibit III
The appellant intervened in these proceedings and claimed that the Jumma Masjid Mercara had become entitled to the properties held by Gangamma firstly under a Sadakah or gift alleged to have been made by her on September 5 1932 and secondly under a deed of release executed on March 3 1933 by Santhappa one of the reversioners relinquishing his half share in the properties to the mosque for a consideration of Rs 300
By an order dated September 9 1933 exhibit II the revenue authorities declined to accept the title of the appellant and directed that the name of Ganapathi should be entered as the owner of the properties
Pursuant to this order Ganapathi got into possession of the properties
The suit out of which the present appeal arises was instituted by the appellant on January 2 1945 for recovery of a half share in the properties that 559 had been held by Gangamma and for mesne profits
In the plaint the title of the appellant to the properties is based both on the gift which Gangamma is alleged to have made on September 5 1932 and on the release deed executed by Santhappa the reversioner on March 3 1933
With reference to the title put forward by the respondents on the basis of exhibit III and exhibit IV the claim made in the plaint is that as the vendors had only a spes succession is in the properties during the lifetime of Gangamma the transfer was void and conferred no title
The defence of the respondents to the suit was that as Santhappa had sold the properties to Ganapathi on a representation that he had become entitled to them as reversioner of Nanjundappa on the death of Ammakka in 1910 he was estopped from asserting that they were in fact the self acquisitions of Basappa and that he had in consequence no title at the dates of exhibit III and exhibit IV
The appellant it was contended could therefore get no title as against them under the release deed exhibit A dated March 3 1933
The District Judge of Coorg who heard the action held that the alleged gift by Gangamma on September 5 1932 had not been established and as this ground of title was abandoned by the appellant in the High Court no further notice will be taken of it
Dealing next with the title claimed by the appellant under the release deed exhibit A executed by Santhappa the District Judge held that as Ganapathi had purchased the properties under exhibit III on the faith of the representation contained therein that the vendors had become entitled to them on the death of Ammakka in 1910 he acquired a good title under section 43 of the  and that exhibit A could not prevail as against it
He accordingly dismissed the suit
The plaintiff took the matter in appeal to the High Court Madras and in view of the conflict of authorities on the question in that Court the case was refer 560 red for the decision of a Full Bench
The learned Judges who heard the reference agreed with the court below that the purchaser under exhibit III had in taking the sale acted on the representation as to title contained therein and held that as the sale by the vendors was of properties in which they claimed a present interest and not of a mere right to succeed in future section 43 of the applied and the sale became operative when the vendors acquired title to the properties on the death of Gangamma on February 17 1933
In the result the appeal was dismissed
The appellant then applied for leave to appeal to this Court under article 1331c and the same was granted by the High Court of Mysore to which the matter had become transferred under section 4 of Act 72 of 1952
That is how the appeal comes before us
The sole point for determination in this appeal is whether a transfer of property for consideration made by a person who represents that he has a present and transferable interest therein while he possesses in fact only a spes successionis is within the protection of section 43 of the 
If it is then on the facts found by the courts below the title of the respondents under exhibit III and exhibit IV must prevail over that of the appellant under exhibit A
If it is not then the appellant succeeds on the basis of Ex A Section 43 of the runs as follows Where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration such transfer shall at the option of the transferee operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contact of transfer subsists
561 Nothing in this section shall impair the right of transferees in good faith for consideration without notice of the existence of the said option
 Considering the scope of the section on its terms it clearly applies whenever a person transfers property to which he has no title on a representation that he has a present and transferable interes therein and acting on that representation the transferee takes a transfer for consideration
When these conditions are satisfied the section enacts that if the transferor subsequently acquires the property the transferee becomes entitled to it if the transfer has not meantime been thrown up or cancelled and is subsisting
There is an exception in favour of transferees for consideration in good faith and without notice of the rights under the prior transfer
But apart from that the section is absolute and unqualified in its operation
It applies to all transfers which fulfil the conditions prescribed therein and it makes 1
O difference in its application whether the defect of title in the transferor arises by reason of his having no interest whatsoever in the property or of his interest therein being that of an expectant heir
The contention on behalf of the appellant is that section 43 must be read subject to section 6 a of the which enacts that The chance of an heir apparent succeeding to an estate the chance of a relation obtaining a legacy on the death of a kinsman or any other mere possibility of a like nature cannot be transferred
 The argument is that if section 43 is to be interpreted as having application to Cases of what are in fact transfers of spes successionis that will have the effect of nullifying section 6 a and that therefore it would be proper to construe section 43 as limited to cases of transfers other than those falling within 
In effect this argument involves importing 562 into the section a new exception to the following effect Nothing in this section shall operate to confer on the transferee any title if the transferor had at the date of the transfer an interest of the kind mentioned in section 6 a
 If we accede
to this contention we will not be construing s43
but rewriting it
We are not entitled observed Lord Loreburn L C in Vickers vs Evans 1 to read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself Now the compelling reason urged by the appellant for reading a further exception in section 43 is that if it is construed as applicable to transfers by persons who have only spes successionis at the date of transfer it would have the effect of nullifying section 6a
But section 6a and section 4 relate to two different subjects and there is no necessary conflict between them Section 6 a deals with certain kinds of interests in property mentioned therein and prohibits a transfer simpliciter of those interests
Section 43 deals with representations as to title made by a transferor who had no title at the time of transfer and provides that the transfer shall fasten itself on the title which the transferor subsequently acquires
Section 6 a enacts a rule of substantive law while section 43 enacts a rule of estoppel which is one of evidence
The two provisions operate on different fields and under different conditions and we see no ground for reading a conflict between them or for outing down the ambit of the one by reference to the other
In our opinion both of them can he given full effect on their own terms in their respective spheres
To hold that transfers by persons who have only a spes successionis at the date of transfer are not within the protection afforded by section 43 would destroy its utility to a large extent
It is also contended that as under the law there can be no estoppel against a statute transfers 563 which are prohibited by section 6a could not be held to be protected by section 43
There would have been considerable force in this argument if the question The fell to be decided solely on the terms of section 6 a
Rules of estoppel are not to be resorted to for defeating or circumventing prohibitions enacted by Statutes on grounds of public policy
But here the matter does not rest only on section 6 a
We have in addition section 43 which enacts a special provision for the protection of transferees for consideration from persons who represent that they have present title which in fact they have not
And the point for decision is simply whether on then facts the respondents are entitled to the benefit of this section
If they are as found by the courts below then the plea of estoppel raised by them on the terms of the section is one pleaded under and not against the statute The appellant also sought to rely on the decisions wherein it has been held that a plea of estoppel could not be raised against a millor who had transferred property on a representation that he was of age and that section 43 was inapplicable to such transfers vide Sadiq Ali Khan vs Jai Kishori Gadigeppa vs Balanagauda 2 Ajudhia Prasad vs Chandan Lal3But the short answer to this contention is that section 43 deals with transfers which fail forwant of title in the transferor and not want of capacity in him at the time of transfer
It may further be observed in this connection that the doctrine of estoppel has been held to have no application to persons who have no contractual capacity where the claim is based on contract vide Mahomed Syedol Ariffin vs Yeoh Oai Gark 4 Levine vs Brougham 5 Leslie Ltd section Sheil Khan Gul vs Lakha Singh 7
Decisions on transfers by minors therefore are of no assistance in ascertaining the true scope of section 43
564 So far we have discussed the question on the language of the section and on the principles applicable thereto
There is an illustration appendedto section 43 and we have deferred consideration thereof to the last as there has been a controversy as to how far it is admissible in construing the section
It is as follows A a Hindu who has separated from his father B sells to C three fields X Y and Z representing that A is authorized to transfer the same
Of these fields Z does not belong to A it having been retained by B on the partition but on B s dying A as heir obtains Z C not having rescinded the contract of sale may require A to deliver Z to him
In this illustration when A sold the field Z to C he had only a spes successionis
But he having subsequently inherited it became entitled to it
This would appear to conclude the question against the appellant
But it is argued that the illustration is repugnant to the section and must be rejected
If the language of the section clearly excluded from its purview transfers in which the transferor had only such interest as is specified in section 6a then it would undoubtedly not be legitimate to use the illustration to enlarge it
But far from being restricted in its scope as contended for by the appellant the section is in our view general in its terms and of sufficient amplitude to take in the class of transfers now in question
Its is not to be readily assumed that all illustration to a section is repugnant to it and rejected
Reference may in this connection be made to the following observations of the judicial Committee in Mahomed Shedol Ariffin vs Yeoh Ooi Gark 1 as to the value to given to illustrations appended to a section in ascertaining its true scope 565 It is the duty of a court of law to accept if that can be done the illustrations given as being both of relevance and value in the construction of the text
The illustrations should in no case be rejected because they do not square with ideas possibly derived from an other system of jurisprudence as to the law with which they are the sections deal And it would require a very special case to warrant their rejection on the ground of their assumed repugnancy to the sections themselves
It would be the very last resort of construction to make any such assumption
The great usefulness of the illustrations which have although no part of the sections been expressly furnished by the Legislature as helpful in the working and application of the statute should not be thus impaired
 We shall now proceed to consider the more important cases wherein the present question has been considered
One of the earliest of them is the decision of the Madras High court in Alamanaya Kunigari Nabi Sab vs Murukuti Papiah 1
That arose out of a suit to enforce a mortgage executed by the son over properties belonging to the father while he was alive
The father died pending the suit and the properties devolved on the son as his heir
The point for decision was whether the mortgagee could claim the protection of section 43 of the 
The argument against is was that section 43 could not be so construed as to nullify section 6a of the  by validating a transfer initially void under s 6a
In rejecting this contention the Court observed This argument however neglects the distinction between purporting to transfer the chance of an heir apparent  and erroneously representing that he the transferor is 566 authorised to transfer certain immoveable property
 It is the latter course that was followed in the present case
It was represented to the transferee that the transferor was in praesenti entitled to and thus authorise to transfer the property p 736 On this reasoning if a transfer is statedly of an interest of the character mentioned in section 6a it would be void whereas if it purports to be of an interest in praesenti it is within the protection afforded by section 43 Then we come to the decision in The official Assignee Madras vs Sampath Naidu 1 where a different view was taken
The facts were that one vs Chetti had executed two mortgages over properties in respect of which he had only spes successionis
Then he succeeded to those properties as heir and then sold them to one Ananda Mohan
A mortgagee claiming under Ananda Mohan filed a suit for a declaration that the two mortgages created by Chetty before he had become entitled to them as heir were void as offending section 6a of the 
The mortgagee contended that in the events that had happened the mortgages had become enforceable under section 43 of the Act
The Court negatived this contention and held that as the mortgages when executed contravened section 6a they could not become valid under section 43
Referring to the decision in Alamanaya Kunigari Nabi Sab vs Murkuti Papiah 2 the Court observed that no distinction could be drawn between a transfer of what is on the face of it spes successionis and what purports to be an interest in praesenti
If such a distinction were allowed observed Bardswell J delivering the Judgment of the Court the effect would be that by a clever description of the property dealt with in a deed of transfer one would be allowed to conceal the real nature of the transaction and evade a clear statutory prohibition
 567 This reasoning is open to the criticism that it ignores the principle underlying section 43
That section embodies as already stated a rule of estoppel and enacts that a person who makes a representation shall not be heard to allege the contrary as against a person who acts on that representation
It is immaterial whether the transferor acts bona fide or fraudulently in making the representation
It is only material to find out whether in fact the transferee has been misled
It is to be noted that when the decision under consideration was given the relevant word of section 43 were where a person erroneously represents and now a amended by Act 20 of 1929 they are where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents and that emphasises that for the purpose of the section it matters not whether the transferor act fraudulently or innocently in making the representation and that what is material is that he did made representation and the transferee has acted on it
Where the transferee knew as a fact that the transferor did not possess the title which he represents he has then he cannot be said to have acted on it when taking a transfer
Section 43 would then have no application and the transfer will fail under section 6a
But where the transferee does act on the representation there is no reason why he should not have the benefit of the equitable doctrine embodied in section 43 however fraudulent the act of the transferor might have been
The learned Judges were further of the opinion that in view of the decision of the Privy Council in Ananda Mohan Roy vs Gour Mohan Mullick 1 and the decision in Sri Jagannada Raju vs Sri Rajah Prasada Rao 2 which was approved therein the illustration to section 43 must be rejected as repugnant to it
In Sri Jagannada Raju s case 2 the question was whether a contract entered into by certain 568 presumptive reversioners to sell the estate which was then held by a widow as heir could be specifically enforced after the succession had opened
It was held that as section 6a forbade transfers of spes successionis contracts to make such transfers would be void under section 23 of the contract Act and could not be enforced
This decision was approved by the Privy Council in Ananda Mohan Roy vs Gour Mohan Mullick1 where also the question was whether a contract by the nearest reversioner to sell property which was in the possession of a widow as heir was valid and enforceable and it was held that the prohibition under section 6a would became futile if agreements to transfer could be enforced
These decisions have no bearing on the question now under consideration as to the right of a person who for consideration takes a transfer of what is represented to be an interest in praesenti
The decision in The Official Assinee Madras vs Sampatha Naidu 2 is in our view erroneous and was rightly over ruled in the decision now under appeal
Proceeding on to the decisions of the other High Courts the point under discussion arose directly for decision in Shyam Narain vs Mangal Prasad 3
The facts were similar to those in The official Assignee Madras section Sampath Naidu2 One Ram Narayan who was the daughter s son of the last male owner sold the properties in 1910 to the respondents while they were vested in the daughter Akashi
On her death in 1926 he succeeded to the properties as heir and sold them in 1927 to the appellants
The appellants claimed the estate on the ground that the sale in 1910 conferred no title on the respondents as Ram Narayan had then only a spes successionis
The respondents contended that they became entitled to the properties when Ram Narayan acquired them as heir in 1926
The learned Judge Sir section M Sulaiman C J and Rachhpal J held agreeing with 569 the decision in Alamanaya Kunigari Nabi Sab vs Murukuti Papiah 1and deffering from The official Assignee Madras vs Sampath Naidu 2and Bindeshwari Singh vs Har Narain Singh 3 that s43 applied and that the respondents had acquired a good title
In coming to this conclusion they relied on the illustration to section 43 as indicating its true scope and observed Section 6 a would therefore apply to cases where professedly there is a transfer of a mere spes successionis the parties knowing that the transferor has no more right than that of a mere expectant heir
The result of course would be the same where the parties knowing the full facts fraudulently clothe the transaction in the garb of a an out and out sale of the property and there is no erroneous representation made by the transferor to the transferor as to his ownership But where an erroneous representation is made by the transferor to the transferee that he is the full owner of the property transferred and is authorized to transfer it and the property transferred is not a mere chance of succession but immovable property itself and the transferee acts upon such erroneous representation then if the transferor happens later before the contract of transfer comes to an end to acquire an interest in that property no matter whether by private purchase gift legacy or by inheritance or otherwise the previous transfer can at the option of the transferee operate on the interest which has been subsequently acquired although it did not exit at the time of the transfer pp 478479
This decision was followed by the Bombay High Court in Vithabai vs Malhar Shankar 4 and by the 570 Patna High Court in Ram Japan vs Jagesara Kuer1
A similar view had been taken by the Nagpur High Court in Syed Bismilla vs Manulal Chabildas2
The preponderance of judicial opinion is in favour of the view taken by the Madras High Court in Alamanaya Kunigari Nabi Sab vs Murukuti Papiah 3 and approved by the Full Bench in the decision now under appeal
In our judgment the interpretation placed on section 43 in those decisions correct and the contrary opinion is erroneous
We accordingly hold that when a person transfers property representing that he has a present interest therein whereas he has in fact only a spes successionis the transferee is entitled to the benefit of section 43 if he has taken the transfer on the faith of that representation and for consideration
In the present case Santhappa the vendor in exhibit III represented that he was entitled to the property in praesenti and it has been found that the purchaser entered into the transaction acting on that representation
He therefore acquired title to the properties under section 44 of the  when Santhappa became in titulo on the death of Gangamma on February 17 1933 and the subsequent dealing with them by Santhappa by way of release under exhibit A did not operate to vest any title in the appellant
The Courts below were right in upholding the title of the respondents and this appeal must be dismissed with costs of the third respondent who alone appears
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
M and S claiming to be reversioners to the estate of N sold the property in dispute to G predecessor in interest of the respondents
The sale deed recited that the property belonged to the joint family of two brothers N and B and on the death of N it was inherited by his widow and on her death it had devolved upon them as reversioners to the state
G sued to recover possession of the properties
The suit was contested by the widow of Bbrother of N claiming that the property was the self acquired property of her husband
During the pendency of the litigation the widow died and G applied to the revenue authorities to transfer the pattas  in his name
The appellants intervened alleging that the property was gifted to them by the widow and S one of the reversioners had also executed a release of the said property for a consideration
This objection was rejected
The appellants then sued for possession of a half share in the properties held by the widow of B relying upon the gift by the widow and the deed of surrender by S one of the two reversioners to the estate of N
They contended that the Vendors of the property to G had 555 only a spes successionis during the life time of the widow of B and the transfer was on that account void and conferred no title
The heirs of contended that the property was sold to by M and S on a representation that the Vendor had become entitled thereto and the appellants as transferees from S were estopped from asserting that it was in fact the self acquisition of and that in consequence he had no title at the date of the sale
 Held that where a person transfers property representing that he has a present interest therein whereas he has in fact only a spes successions the transferee is entitled to the benefit of section 43 of the  if he has taken the transfer for consideration and on the faith of the representation
Held further that apart from the exception in favour of transferees for consideration in good faith and without notice of the rights under the prior transfer section 43 of the is absolute and unqualified in its operation
It applies to all transfers which fulfil the conditions prescribed therein and it makes no difference in its application whether the defect of title in the transferor arises by reason of his having no interest in the property or of his interest therein being that of an expectant heir
The section deals with transfers which fail for want of title in the transferor and not want of capacity in him at the time of transfer
It embodies a rule of estoppel and enacts that a person who makes a representation shall not be heard to allege the contrary as against a person who acts on the representation
It is immaterial whether the transferor acts bona fide or fraudulently in making the representation
It is only material to find out whether in fact the transferee has been misled
In view of the specific provision of section 43 the principle of estoppel against a statute does not apply to transfers prohibited by section 6 a of the Act
The two provisions operate in different fields and under different conditions
There is no necessary conflict between them and the ambit of one cannot be cut down by reference to the other
Section 6a enacts a rule of substantive law while section 43 enacts a rule of estoppel which is one of evidence
Held also that if the language of the section clearly excludes from its purview certain matters it would not be legitimate to use the illustration to the section to enlarge it
It is not to be readily assumed that an illustration to a section is repugnant to it and rejected
Vickers vs Evans 191079 LJKB 955 relied on
556 Sadiq Ali Khan vs Jai Kishori AIR 1928 PC 152 Gadigeppa vs Balangauda 1931 ILR  Ajudhia Prasad vs Chandan Lal ILR 1937 All
860 FB Mohomed Syedol Ariffin vs Yeoh Ooi Gark 1916 LR 43 IA 256 Levine vs Brougham  Leslie Ltd vs Sheill and Khan Gul vs Lakha Singh Lah
701FB referred to
Alamanaya Kunigari Nabi Sab vs Murukuti Papiah  Shyam Narain vs Mangal Prasad All 474 Vithabai vs Mathar Shankar ILR  Ram Japan vs Jagesara Kuer AIR 1939 Pat 116 and Syed Bismilla vs Munulal Chabildas AI R  approved
Official Assignee Madras vs Sampath Naidu and Bindeshwari Singh vs Har Narain Singh Luck
622 disapproved