A. N. Varma, J. - (1.) THIS petition is against an order of the Board of Revenue dated 30-12-1976 allowing the second appeal filed by contesting res pondent No. 4 and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Ad ditional Commissioner, Gorakhpur in an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Court of the first instance.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that the respondent no. 4 filed a suit under Section 176 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act for division of his holdings in which it was asserted that the plaintiffs had half share while the petitioner had the other half. THE suit was contested by the petitioner on the ground that there was a family arrangement between the defendant and the plaintiff under which the said defendant was to get 7/12 share whereas the plaintiff was to get 5/1 2 share of Shrimati Sunara, the aunt of the parties. THE trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff had half share according to the pedigree which was admitted to the parties while the remaining half belonged to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner held that the family arrangement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant was binding on the parties. Under the family arrangement, the petitioner was to get 7/12 share, while the remaining 5/12 share was to go to the respondent No. 4, the plaintiff. The decree passed by the trial Court was accordingly modified by the Additional Commissioner. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a second appeal which has been allowed. The Board of Revenue has held that the so called family arrangement was void and imperative in law inasmuch as there could not be any agreement with regard to a right which did not exist at the time of the making of the family arrangement. The second appeal was consequently allowed. The decree passed by the Additional Commissioner was set aside, and that passed by the Trial Court was restored.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid view of the Board of Revenue is manifestly erroneous in law. It was submitted that the agreement was with regard to a possible right which might have accrued in favour of the parties upon the death of Smt. Sunara. I cannot agree. The Board of Revenue is right in taking the view that a family arrangement family could be in regard to existing rights. It is not disputed that the time when the family arrangement is said to have been entered into, Smt. Sunara was alive. She was at liberty to dispose of her rights in her life time. There was at best a mere possibility or chance of the parties succeeding to Smt. Sunara in the event of her dying intestate. Under the circumstances, there could not be a binding family arrangement in respect of a mere chance of succession. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.;