1. "Creation of Interest" is not equal to "rights of owner".
2. Creatiion of Interest in the property, is always sub-judice issues, till a RIGHT has been established.
3. A Right can be established, ONLY & ONLY when a rght has been transferred on records and "Creation of Interest" is a fiction for the projected purposes.
4. Between "creation of Interest" and "execution rights", there may crop up other vested interests or other successors, thus diluting the present successors interest in property.
5. Hence, ONLY when the rights of a property is absolutely transferred, it can be established and executed for purposes of Sale, Reliquishment, lease etc...
6. Based on "creation of interest", a right cannot be established for purpose of sale, reliquishment or lease or etc...
7. A non-successor or a non-heir, can also claim "interest" in the property. AND this cannot be settled by the instant successor and if it so happens, the instant successors cannot relinquish anything, which is under dispute or which is not duly transferred to them (absolute right over property)
8. To relinquish anything, a person should have absolute right (and not a legal fiction right) over the property. One cannot relinquish anything that does not belong to him.
9. Creation of Interest is a conditional interest. Absolute right is not a conditional interest. Creation of Interest is disputable, whereas "absolute right" is not.
10. Under the HSAct, the son is the legal heir and by default creates "an absolute Interest" on his parents property. BUT, But, but, "SUBJECT TO", the wishes of parents, who MAY NOT bequeat him anything, thereby nully'fiing his absolute legal interest in his parents property.
11. Here it will be impossible for the son (as above), to state that he has "created an interest" in the parents property (deceased or otherwise) and that he is relinqishing his heirical rights on the property to any other person.
Above meant only for understanding purposes and not otherwise.
Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal