IMPORTANT POINT
Chance of an heir apparent succeeding to an estate cannot be transferred under Section 6(a) of T.P. Act.

N.K. Balakrishnan, J.— 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 Ex.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 Ex.B1 document is hit by Section 6(a) of Transfer of Property Act?

(2) Does not Ex.B1 show relinquishment of the chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate, and if so, is not the plaintiff/appellant entitled to share in the plaint schedule property?

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the courts below failed to take note of the fact that the plaint schedule property was actually available for partition and that Ex.B1 cannot be treated as a relinquishment deed. Section 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act prohibits transfer of the chance of an heir apparent succeeding to an estate and as such Ex.B1 is invalid and as such the courts below should not have relied upon Ex.B1 to hold that the plaintiff’s right was lost by relinquishment as pleaded by the defendants, it is argued by the learned senior counsel. The courts below should have found that the appellant’s right to succeed would arise only on the death of his father and mother and no such right did exist as on the date of Ex.B1 so as to transfer or relinquish the same, it is further argued. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that the courts below went wrong in interpreting Ex.B1. The undertaking made by the appellant in Ex.B1 cannot have the effect of abandonment or relinquishment of his future claims in the suit properties. The learned’ senior counsel would also submit that the ‘finding entered by the courts below that the appellant relinquished his right in lieu of his share is legally unsustainable. Hence the appellant contended that the plaint schedule property is liable to be partitioned.

5. Sri T. V. George, the learned counsel appearing for respondents has strongly resisted the submission made on behalf of the appellant pointing out the recitals in Ex.B1 document would clearly go to show that it was executed by the appellant in consideration of the value of the share which the appellant might be entitled to get as a legal heir of his parents. The learned counsel submits the recitals in Ex. B1 with regard to the same, which have been extracted by the lower appellate court in paragraph 10 of the judgment, would make it undoubtedly clear that the value of share which the appellant was entitled to get was determined in the presence of the mediators and agreeing to the terms suggested by the mediators, he consented to receive the amount as the value of his share which he would be entitled to get and therefore, the argument to the contrary advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be sustained.

6. The recitals in Ex. B1 would show that with regard to the share which the appellant was entitled to get, the mediators intervened and they decided what should be the value of his share and what was determined by them as the value of the share was agreed upon and accepted by the appellant. From the personal earnings of the appellant’s father, the appellant obtained Rs.1,000 as the value equivalent to his share in the join