The relinquishment of future succession for consideration is valid and not covered under Section 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, but is governed by the principle of estoppel under Section 115 of the Evidence Act.

The plaintiff is the appellant in the suit and the appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.1997, in A.S.No.21 of 1995, on the file of the learned Principle District Judge, Tuticorin, confirming the judgment and decree dated 02.03.1994 in O.S.No.289 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam.

2.The suit is filed for partition and for mesne profits. According to the plaintiff,the first schedule of the suit property belonged to one Marimuthu Thevar, the father of the plaintiff, who was doing brokerage and the income was not sufficient. The husband of the plaintiff assisted the said Marimuthu Thevar and with their joint efforts, the second schedule property was purchased in the name of Mrimuthu Thevar and in the 4th item, Marimuthu Thevar constructed two houses. The third schedule property belonged to the mother of the plaintiff, namely, Petchiammal and she died in the year 1957. Marimuthu Thevar had executed a registered will dated 20.04.1970 bequeathing the properties to others against the interest of the plaintiff. He revoked the will and on such revocation, Marimuthu Thevar insisted the plaintiff to execute a release deed in his favour. The said release deed is not valid as it was executed under coercion and undue influence. Marimuthu Thevar died in the year 1988 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5 as his legal heirs. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the first schedule and 1/6th share in the second and third schedule properties. The other defendants are subsequent transferees.

3.The suit was resisted by the defendants 1 to 5 stating that the plaintiff has relinquished her right under release deed dated 06.01.1971 which is for a valuable consideration and therefore, she is not entitled for any share. The trial Court on analysing the oral and documentary evidence found that the release deed is true and valid and negatived the contention of the plaintiff that it was created under coercion and undue influence and also negatived the plea of the plaintiff that the release deed was hit by the Section 6 of Transfer Property Act and thus dismissed the suit. The first appellate Court also agreed with the trail Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

“1.The courts below erred in law in its interpretation of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act. 2.The courts below overlooked that any transfer covered by Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act is contrary to law and as such a transfer cannot be validated on the ground of estopped under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, on the Principle that there cannot be any estoppel against statutes. 3.The courts below overlooked, indisputably on the date of Ex.A.4, that the release and the appellant, the releasor, knew the fact that the appellant is not entitled to a share and that she is only a heir apparent and as such there is no question of estoppel arises”. 4.On admission of the second appeal, the following substantial question of law is formulated:

“Whether the courts below is right in holding that Ex.A.4 is valid and binding on the appellant especially when the said Ex.A.4 is hit by Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act?

5.Heard Mr.K.Srinivasan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents /defendants.

6.It is admitted that the suit property originally belonged to one Marimuthu Thevar and his wife Petchiammal. It is also admitted that on 06.01.1971, there were certain documents came to be executed by Marimuthu Thevar and the plaintiff. Marimuthu Thevar executed a deed of transfer in favour of plaintiffs husband Shunmuga Thevar under Ex.A.1. Under Ex.A.5, Marimuthu Devar seems to have revoked the earlier will Ex.A.3. The plaintiff has executed a gift deed in favour of said Marimuthu Thevar. Under Ex.A.4 and she had also ex