1. The plaintiff in a suit for partition is the appellant. The plaintiff and the defendants are the children of Raju Chettiar and Smt. Parvathiamma. Raju Chettiar died in the year 1994. Parvathiamma died in 1995. The plaint A schedule property measures two acres. It is an unassigned government land with a building thereon. The B schedule property measures two cents, which is situated in Uthamapalayam in Tamil Nadu. The plaintiff contended that the plaint schedule properties are liable to be partitioned into three shares and one such share is to be allotted to the plaintiff/appellant. The suit was resisted by the defendants projecting Ext.B1 which is a deed of relinquishment executed by the appellant.

2. The trial court accepted the contentions raised by the defendants and dismissed the suit. The appellate court confirmed that finding and dismissed the appeal.

3. The following substantial questions of law have been re-framed for consideration:

(1)Whether Ext.B1 document is hit by section 6 (a) of Transfer of Property Act?

(2) Does not Ext.B1 show relinquishment of the chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate, and if so, is not the plaintiff/appellant entitled