MEHANAVATHY Vs. PUNYAKODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Where a grantor had purported to grant an interest in land, or transferred the land, over which he has no interest/title at that time, but subsequently acquires, the benefit of the subsequent acquisition goes automatically/instantly to the earlier grantee, which is usually expressed as "feeding the grant by estoppel". This principle is partly based on common law doctrine of estoppel by deed and partly on the equitable doctrine that a man who has promised more than what he can perform, must make good his promise whenever he acquires the power of performance. Whether this equitable doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel would apply to the facts of the case is the issue raised in the second appeal.

(2.) The second plaintiff is the appellant and the second defendant is the respondent. The first plaintiff is the mother and after her demise the second plaintiff has brought on record. The first defendant who is the husband and the second defendant who is the son of the first plaintiff have been recorded as the legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant also died.

(3.) The suit was filed by the deceased first plaintiff seeking the relief of injunction and alternatively for the relief of declaration, possession and damages of Rs.3,000/- equal to the value of crops taken away. The suit was dismissed. The appeal filed by the second plaintiff in A.S.No.84 of 1997 also met with the same result of dismissal. Challenging the dismissal, the second plaintiff has filed this second appeal.