Transfer — Transfer for benefit of unborn person — Transfer of Property Act, section 13.

 The appellants were minors when they instituted the suit through their natural guardian, their paternal grandmother. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit properties were the self-acquired properties of their great-grandfather, Muniswamappa. He had, by three separate registered gift deeds dated 5-6-1957, one executed in favour of his wife Akkayamma and two in favour of his grandson Revenna (R) defendant in the suit, gifted the suit properties. It was further stated that the properties were in the occupation of tenants. Muniswamappa and his wife Akkayamma expired in the year 1960 and 1961, respectively. It is the case of the plaintiffs that under the gift deeds, neither Akkayamma nor Revanna had any right to alienate the suit properties as they were conferred with a limited interest to enjoy the properties during their lifetime and thereafter the properties were to devolve on the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding this limitation, the defendant No. 1

— Revanna had proceeded to alienate the suit properties under sale deeds in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 to 5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that such alienations were void and did not bind the plaintiffs. It was their case that they had a vested right immediately on their birth. The first plaintiff was born prior to the said sale deeds. The plaintiffs, therefore, alleged that the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 in collusion with the tenants in occupation of the suit properties were seeking to occupy the properties and to illegally demolish the same and therefore the plaintiffs would be deprived of their legitimate right and had proceeded to file a civil suit.

The Court observed that where the suit property was bequeathed by virtue of a gift deed by the donor in favour of his grandson ‘R’ and his unborn brothers and thereafter property was to devolve upon the male children of the grandson ‘R’, it could be said that gift deed created a life interest in favour of ‘R’ and since he did not have a brother, the property absolutely devolved upon the male children of ‘R’ i.e., the plaintiffs. Further ‘R’ had only life interest in the suit property and he had no right to alienate the same.

As soon the plaintiffs were born, ‘R’ would lose the right to alienate the property as an interest is created in favour of the plaintiffs under the gift deeds which would be a prohibition for ‘R’ to alienate the property. The fact that ‘R’ had executed the sale deed in favour of the defendants would be immaterial. Plaintiffs were born prior to the sale transaction. If that be so, the property stood vested in the plaintiffs on their birth. Thus the property devolved on the plaintiffs immediately after the lifetime of ‘R’ since there were no other persons, who were capable of deriving such interest. The plea that ‘R’ and defendant purchasers had acted on the basis of the same would not absolve the defendants of their conduct as being illegal, since it was clearly against the law and there can be no estoppels against statute, nor can the defendants plead equity on that ground. The condition against the alienation imposed in the gift deed was not void. The plaintiffs consequently were held entitled to sale consideration received by ‘R’ under the sale deeds. The Court however declined the claim of the plaintiffs to recover the property.