Fiduciary transfers must be proved fair and genuine; estoppel fails without clear representation, reliance, and detriment.

The Court held that once the rejoinder was taken on record and both sides led evidence on that basis, the factual material in the rejoinder could not be excluded without legal justification, and it remained relevant to the merits. On the transfer dispute, the Court found the transfer documents surrounded by suspicious circumstances and treated the matter as one arising in a fiduciary setting, requiring the beneficiary to prove genuineness and fairness; that burden was not discharged. It also held that estoppel failed because no clear representation, reliance, and detriment were proved. The transfer was therefore unsustainable and the award in favour of the transferor was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the pleadings and evidence in the rejoinder could be excluded from consideration in deciding the dispute. (ii) Whether the transfer of the flat and shares in favour of the transferee was valid, and whether estoppel or equity barred the transferor from challenging it.

Issue (i): Whether the pleadings and evidence in the rejoinder could be excluded from consideration in deciding the dispute.

Analysis: The rejoinder had been taken on record and evidence had been led by both sides on the factual case set out therein. The adjudicatory forums below excluded those materials without identifying any legal basis. Once the pleadings were completed by the reply and rejoinder, and the evidence was recorded on that footing, the factual case in the rejoinder remained relevant to the merits.

Conclusion: The exclusion of the rejoinder material was unjustified and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer of the flat and shares in favour of the transferee was valid, and whether estoppel or equity barred the transferor from challenging it.

Analysis: The letters and agreement relied upon for transfer were surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The supposed close relationship and absence of consideration did not match the admitted facts or the transferee's own version of consideration. The shares said to constitute payment were acquired after the transfer documents, the withdrawal of consent was ignored, and the material facts showed a fiduciary setting in which the burden of proving fairness and genuineness lay on the beneficiary of the transfer. The elements of estoppel were also absent because there was no proved representation, reliance, and alteration of position to the transferee's detriment.

Conclusion: The transfer was not proved to be genuine or legally sustainable, and estoppel did not apply against the transferor.

Final Conclusion: The award in favour of the transferor stood restored, and the orders of the appellate forums were set aside because the transfer transaction failed on the facts and in law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a transaction arising in a fiduciary setting, the party benefiting from the transfer must prove the genuineness and fairness of the arrangement, and estoppel applies only where a clear representation, reliance, and detriment are established.

---