The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of family arrangements and the application of estoppel under S. 115 of the Evidence Act in relinquishing future inheritance rights.

Defendants 2 to 4 and an alienee of the 2nd defendant are the appellants. Plaintiff claimed 1/ 4 share in the plaint schedule properties. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are the children of one Nani who died on 6-7-1964. The other defendants are persons claiming under the defendants. Plaint schedule items 1 to 6 and 12 to 17 absolutely belonged to Nani. Items 7 to 11 are the makkathayam properties of Nani and her children, each having an equal share over the same. In regard to items 18 to 25 the suit was dismissed by the trial Court which was not challenged by the plaintiff and accordingly that has become final. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Nani, he is entitled to a fourth share in the plaint properties; but the defendants entered into a partition arrangement evidenced by Ext. P12 dated 17-3-1965 excluding the plaintiff and accordingly the present suit is filed for partition and recovery of his share.

2. The contesting defendants filed a written statement and according to them the plaintiff has no right in the plaint schedule properties. Even during the life time of Nani, the plaintiff was pestering her that he should be given a share over the properties, a dispute was pending between the mother and the son and on the mediation of some people, under Ext. D2 dated 27-9-1956 Nani settled in favour of the plaintiff and his children certain properties towards his 1/5 share over the entire properties. That gift was executed subject to the condition that the plaintiff should not claim any right in the properties of Nani after her death. On the same day, under Ext. D1 the nominal rights of the plaintiff over the makkathayam properties were released in favour of the mother. Both these documents were presented for registration by the plaintiff. The gift deed Ext. D2 was accepted and acted upon by the plaintiff thereby accepting the condition therein to the effect that he will not be entitled to claim any further share over Nani's properties. According to the defendants, plaintiff was a prodigal son and was persistently demanding for a share in the properties of his mother. Even though the mother was reluctant to give any property to the plaintiff, in order to preserve the peace of the family she executed the gift deed. According to the defendants, the conditions on which the plaintiff accepted the gift deed are binding on him and he cannot claim any share out of the estate of the mother contrary to the family arrangement evidenced by Exts. D1 and D2.

3. The trial Court came to the conclusion that Exts. D1 and D2 constitute a family arrangement and that the plaintiff is estopped from contending that he is entitled to a share over the plaint schedule properties by virtue of the conditions contained in Ext. D2 gift deed. Accordingly the suit was dismissed.

4. Against the above decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that there was no necessity for entering into any family arrangement. On the effect of Exts. D1 and D2 the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not estopped from claiming any share in the assets left by Nani. In that view of the matter, the lower appellate Court set aside the dismissal of the suit and granted a preliminary decree to the plaintiff declaring his 1/4 share in items 1 to 6 and 12 to 17 and 1/10 share in items 7 to 11. Consequential directions were also given. Defendants 2 to 4 and an alienee of the 2nd defendant have come up in Second Appeal against the above decree.

5. Before this Court counsel for the appellants contended that Exts. D1 and D2 constitute a family arrangement. Though a release of the rights of the plaintiff as such was not executed, admittedly the plaintiff accepted Ext. D2 and hence he is bound by the conditions therein. One of the conditions mentioned in that document is to the effect that he will not be entitled to claim any share over the properties of Nani in future and accordingly the plaintiff