Can a life estate holder and the remainderman together validly alienate the property covered under a Will, in the absence of any other interest holders?

Paragraph 21So, the suit property would be separate property in the hands of Veerappa. It is settled legal position that life estate holder and the remainderman / vested remainder holder, in the absence of any other interest / right holders, can together alienate the property covered under Will. This settled legal principle could be derived from the doctrine of estoppel. It could also be derived from the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as per which, though Veerappa being the remainderman / vested remainder holder was yet to acquire title over the properties covered under Ex-B.2 - Gift Settlement Deed including the suit property, the latter absolute title he acquired upon the demise of the life estate holder - Unnamalaiammal would operate to fulfill the transfer made by him under Ex-B.2. For ready reference, Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is extracted hereunder: "43. Transfer by unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest in property transferred. - 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 contract of transfer subsists. Nothing in this section shall impair the right of transferees in good faith for consideration without notice of the existence of the said option. Illustration A, a Hindu who has separated from his father B, sells to C three fields, X, Y and Z, representing that A is authorised 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does not belong to A, it having been retained by B on the partition; but on B's dying A as heir obtains Z.C, not having rescinded the contract of sale, may require A to deliver Z to him."

Paragraph 26In view of the foregoing narrative, this Court finds that the decision of the Trial Court in dismissing the Suit is correct. The First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the settled legal position that life estate holder and the remainderman / vested remainder can together validly alienate the property covered under the Will, in the absence of interests and rights of any other person, in the right perspective and erred in reversing the Trial Court's decision. The Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court are liable to be set aside and the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court are to be restored.