The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that a mere chance of succeeding to the estate of a living person cannot be transferred, and succession to the estate of a person opens only on the death of such person.

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by R.Santhi @ Gowthami, who figured as the sole defendant in O.S.No.233 of 2000, which was filed by Nallammal, the deceased first respondent herein, on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, for partition claiming half share in each one of Items 1 and 2 of the suit properties.

2. The claim of Nallammal was declined by the trial Court and the said suit came to be dismissed in its entirety by the learned Subordinate Judge, Salem by judgment and decree dated 19.01.2004. On appeal in A.S.No.91 of 2004 on the file of the District Court, Salem, the learned Principal District Judge reversed the findings of the trial Court, set aside the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit and granted a preliminary decree directing division of the suit properties, both items 1 and 2, into two equal shares and allotment of one such share to Nallammal, the deceased first respondent herein. As against the reversing judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Judge dated 14.02.2005 made in A.S.No.91 of 2004, the appellant herein (defendant) has preferred the present second appeal on various grounds set out in the grounds of second appeal.

3. During the pendency of the second appeal, the second item of the suit property was purchased by Respondents 2 and 3 from one of the parties to the appeal through the 4th respondent who acted as Power Agent of the vendor therein. Hence, by virtue of an order dated 01.11.2010, respondents 2 to 4 were impleaded. The first respondent Nallammal passed away during the pendency of the second appeal and pursuant to her death, her surviving son Venkatachalam (R5), Daughters, Tmt.Soudaram alias Shakunthala, Tmt.Vasantha (R6 & R7), wife and children of a predeceased son Devarajan, namely Kulanjai Ammal, Suresh and Ambika (R8 to R10) were impleaded as the legal representatives of Nallammal. Among the respondents 5 to 10, impleaded as legal representatives of Nallammal, the 6th respondent alone has entered appearance through very same counsel who had been engaged by the original respondent, namely R1-Nallammal and the other respondents, namely R5 and R7 to R10 have not chosen to enter appearance either in person or through counsel.

4. So far as the 6th respondent is concerned, she claims to be the sole legal heir of Nallammal by virtue of the last Will dated 06.07.2010 (registered) allegedly left by Nallammal. As the decree declaring the share of the deceased first respondent Nallammal in the suit properties, alone is challenged in the second appeal by the appellant, this Court need not trouble itself with regard to the succession to the share of Nallammal by the persons claiming to be her legal heirs. Suffice to decide the sustainability of the decree passed by the lower appellate Court declaring the share of the first respondent Nallammal (deceased) to be half in each of the suit Items 1 and 2 and directing division of those items as prayed for.

5. The second appeal was admitted identifying and formulating the following to be the substantial question of law involved in the second appeal:

“On the face of the admitted fact of pleading that item 1 was purchased by defendant and her husband is the lower appellate Court correct and justified in granting ½ share to the plaintiff in item 1 especially when plaintiff's son was entitled to only ½ share in item 1?”

6. The arguments advanced by Mr.T.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mr. D.Shivakumaran, learned counsel for the contesting respondent, namely the 6th respondent are heard. The materials available on record are also perused.

7. In view of the admitted facts, the scope of the second appeal is very limited. Item 1 of the suit property is a house site along with superstructure. Item 1 of the suit property was purchased jointly by Ramalingam and his wife, namely the appellant herein, under a sale deed dated 28.11.1984 marked as Ex.B1. In the normal circumstances, both Ramalingam and his wife, namely the ap