Judgement JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Tirunelveli in A. S. No. 3 of 1953 confirming the order and decree of the learned District Munsif of Tirunelveli in E. A. No. 291 of 1952 in O. S. No. 77 of 1951. 2. The facts are : On 26-1-1947 one Md. Kasim Taraganar appears to have entered into an arrangement with his sons and grandsons purporting to release all his rights in the coparcenary properties in return for an undertaking by them to supply him with food and clothes. The original settlement deed is not forthcoming and I am reproducing the terms from the information given in the subsequent assignment deed of 01-11-1951. 3. This Taraganar filed O. S. No. 77 of 1951 apparently on the ground that the promise of maintaining him was not kept up and claimed past and future maintenance. In the suit the sons and grandsons were defendants. 4. In the course of pendency of the proceedings this Taraganar executed what is called an assignment deed in favour of his grandsons assigning his maintenance from 20-2-1951 to 30-10-1951 amounting to Rs. 416-10-8 plus a sum of Rs. 1800 which is said to have been due by way of past maintenance calculated at Rs. 50 per month, totalling Rs. 2,216-10-8. The document recites that this sum has been received from the grandsons, and that it is to be recovered either by the grandsons themselves prosecuting the suit or by the assignor himself prosecuting the suit, and that after obtaining a decree they should execute it. It also mentions that all the coparcenary properties would stand charged for this amount. 5. Subsequently this Taraganar compromised the matter with the defendants and obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 828. He died sometime after obtaining the compromise decree in 1952. The assignee-decree-holder, Abdul Kadir, filed an application for recognition of the assignment in his favour and to allow him to draw the decree amount in court deposit. 6. This application was resisted on the ground that this assignment is forbidden by S. 6(a), Transfer of Property Act. This contention was upheld by both the Courts below. Hence this second appeal here. 7. 6. This application was resisted on the ground that this assignment is forbidden by S. 6(a), Transfer of Property Act. This contention was upheld by both the Courts below. Hence this second appeal here. 7. On a careful consideration of all the circumstances of this case, I find that the assignment will be hit by S. 6(a), Transfer of Property Act which states "that any other mere possibility of a like nature like the chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate etc. cannot be transferred." In this case what has been transferred ? This Taraganar purported to release his rights in the family properties against an undertaking for maintaining him with clothes and food by the sons and grandsons. When they did not keep up that undertaking, he has come to the Court with a specific claim that he should be paid past and future maintenance at a specified rate and claimed a liquidated sum of money. From the mere fact that he has come to the Court and asked for past and future maintenance at a particular rate, it does not mean that he would get it. It is nothing more than an expectation because the Court may not grant him past maintenance at all. As regards the future maintenance the Court may grant at much lower rate. 8. What the grandfather attempted to do has been well put by Tyabji, J. in - Sri Jagannada Raju v. Sri Rajah Prasada Rao, 39 Mad 554 at p. 560 : (AIR 1916 Mad 579 at p. 581) (A), It would be defeating the provisions of the Act to hold that though such hopes or expectations cannot be transferred in present or future, a person may bind himself to bring about the same results by giving to the agreement the form of a promise to transfer not the expectations but the fruits of the expectations, by saying that what he has purported to do may be described in a different language from that which the legislature has chosen to apply to it for the purpose of condemning it." This is a case of nothing more than a transfer of the assignors inchoate right which had not crystallised into a defined sum as laid down in - Muthalammal v. Veeraraghavalu Naidu, 1952-2 Mad LJ 344 : ( AIR 1953 Mad 202 ) (B). It would have been different if the claim had ripened into a decree, because in such a case it will not be a mere contested claim but a decree in regard to which any defence that might have been open to the defendants would no longer be available. Therefore both the lower Courts rightly held that this claim prior to the decree was not assignable, as it would become assignable only after it ceased to be a claim and crystallised into a decree. See - Dhanapala Chettiar v. Krishna Chettiar, 1955-1 Mad LJ 72 : ((S) AIR 1955 Mad 165 ) (C). 9. In the result there are no grounds whatever to interfere with the conclusions of the lower Courts and this appeal is dismissed with costs. No leave. Appeal dismissed.