SUBBARAJ Vs. PANDIYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The following substantial questions of law have been re-framed for consideration:

(3.) 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 Ext. 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 Ext. B1 is invalid and as such the courts below should not have relied upon Ext. B1 to hold that the plaintiffs 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 Ext. 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 Ext. B1. The undertaking made by the appellant in Ext. 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.