Ram Charan Das vs Girija Nandini Devi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1965 Supreme(SC) 139

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SARKAR, J.R. MUDHOLKAR AND R.S. BACHAWAT, JJ.
Ram Charan Das, Appellant
Versus
Girja Nandini Devi and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 520 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. P. Sinha, Senior Advocate (M/s. E. C. Agarwala, S. Shaukat Hussain and P. C. Agarwala Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. Niren De, Addl. Solicitor-General of India, (M/s. Yogeshwar Prasad and A. N. Goyal, Advocates, with him), for Respondent No. 1.

Advocates:
A.N.GOYAL, E.C.AGARWAL, NIREN DEY, P.C.AGRAWAL, S.P.SINHA, S.SHAUKAT HUSSAIN, YOGESHAR PRASAD

Headnote:Family settlement — duty of the court - Family settlement does not amount to transfer - Compromise by way of family settlement - Concept of family settlement

       – Courts give effect to family settlement upon broad and several grounds that its object is to settle existing or future disputes regarding property amongst members of a family. The word “family” in this context is not to be understood in a narrow sense of being a group of persons who are recognized in law as having a right of succession or having a claim to a share in the property in dispute. The consideration for such a settlement, if one may put in that way, is the expectation that such a settlement will result in establishing or ensuing amity and good will amongst persons bearing relationship with one another. That consideration having passed by each of the disputants the settlement consisting or recognition of the right asserted by each other cannot be permitted to be impeached there after. In the case of Ram Charan Das v. Girija Nandini Devi, AIR 1966 SC 323 = 1965(2) SCWR 837 = 1966(1) SCJ 61 = 1965(3) SCR 841, it was held that the family settlement in question was entered into by the parties bona fide for the purpose of putting an end to the dispute among family members.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The case involves a dispute over the validity and legal effect of a family settlement, particularly a deed of compromise executed in the context of ongoing family property disputes (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that family settlements are primarily aimed at resolving existing or future disputes among family members regarding property, with the broader purpose of fostering amity and goodwill. The word "family" in this context is understood broadly to include persons related by blood or marriage, even if they do not have a legal right of succession or claim to the property (!) .
A family settlement does not amount to a transfer of property but is a compromise intended to settle disputes. It is not considered an alienation or a creation of interest in property under the relevant statutes, especially when entered into bona fide for dispute resolution (!) (!) .
The transaction in question was entered into by the parties to settle disputes concerning the estate of a deceased family member. The parties acted in good faith, and the settlement was ultimately acted upon and benefited all involved, indicating its binding nature (!) .
The document under consideration, which was a compromise of pending family suits, was intended to be final and comprehensive, covering all disputes related to the estate. The terms of the agreement were clear, and the parties intended it to be binding for all time, not a temporary arrangement (!) (!) .
The court analyzed specific clauses within the deed, including provisions that acknowledged relationships and rights, but these did not imply that the settlement was non-final or temporary. The language and context of the document suggest it was meant to be a final settlement (!) (!) .
The transaction was closely related to family disputes and disputes among family members, and all interested parties were involved, which supports the conclusion that it was a family arrangement rather than a transfer or alienation (!) .
The court also considered the legal position that family settlements are generally not considered transfers of property or interest in property, especially when made bona fide to resolve disputes. The transaction did not transfer or create a legal interest in the property under the management of a Court of Wards, and thus, it did not violate relevant statutory provisions (!) (!) .
The transaction was found to be consistent with the principles that govern family settlements, including the recognition that such agreements are intended to prevent future disputes and to promote harmony among family members (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the family settlement was valid, binding, and did not constitute a transfer or creation of interest in property under the applicable law, and upheld the decrees of the lower courts (!) .

Please let me know if you require further analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.

Judgement

MUDHOLKAR, J.: The substantial question which falls for decision in this appeal is as to the legal effect of a deed, Ex. Y-13, dated March 31, 1933 described in the paper-book as a deed of partition. A subsidiary question also arises for consideration which is, whether the validity of the transaction evidenced by the deed is affected by reason of the fact that the property comprised therein was at the time of its execution, under the management of the Court of Wards. According to the plaintiff the deed was invalid and did not affect his right to a share in the property in the suit. His contention failed both in the trial Court as well as in the High Court.

2. The property covered by the deed belonged to one Kanhaiyalal who died on June 10, 1922 without leaving a widow or any issue. This property along with some other property originally belonged to Kanhaiyalal s grand-father Chunnilal. It is said by some of the parties that by a will executed by him in the year 1883 he devised his property in favour of Kanhaiyalal and his brother Madho Prasad. Madho Prasad died during the lifetime of Kanhaiyalal, leaving a daughter Maheshwari Bibi. After Madho Prasad s death Kanhaiyalal entered into possession of the property which had been bequeathed to Madho Prasad by Chunnilal. After Kanhaiyalal s death Kadma Kuar, his mother, entered into possession of the entire property which was in the possession of Kanhaiyalal till his death. Kadma Kuar died on October 14, 1937 and shortly thereafter the suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by Ram Charan Das, the appellant. It may be mentioned that Kanhaiyalal and Madho Prasad had a sister by name Mst. Pyari Bibi. She had a son named Gopinath who died in the year 1934 leaving a widow, Girja Nandini, the first defendant to the suit. The plaintiff is the sixth son of Diwan Madan Gopal. Diwan Madan Gopal was one of the two sons of Brijlal and Brijlal was the only son of Deoki Nandan. Deoki Nandan himself was the elder brother of Chunnilal. The plaintiff who is the appellant before us is thus a collateral of Kanhaiyalal. It is not disputed that he and his brothers were the next reversioners entitled to succeed to Kanhaiyalal s property after the death of his mother Kadma Kuar. To this suit he joined Girja Nandini Devi, widow of Gopinath as defendant No. 1 and it is she who is the contesting respondent before us.

3. Soon after Kadma Kuar entered into possession of the estate of Kanhaiyalal, she applied to the appropriate authority for taking over possession of management of the property which was in the possession of Kanhaiyalal at the time of his death whereupon the Court of Wards took over its management under S. 10 of the U. P. Court of Wards Act, 1912 (IV of 1912). This property consisted not only of the property which Kanhaiyalal had obtained under the will of Chunnilal but also of the property which had been bequeathed in that will to Madho Prasad and of which Kanhaiyalal had obtained possession during his lifetime. Maheshwari Bibi, the daughter of Madho Prasad laid a claim to the property which had been bequeathed by Chunnilal on the ground that the two brothers who took these properties under Chunnilal s will took them not as joint tenants but as tenants in common. The claim made by her in this respect was examined by the Court of Wards and upon Kadma Kuar agreeing, the Court of Wards released half of the estate under its management, that is, the share in the property which is said to have been bequeathed to Madho Prasad.

4. It is necessary to refer to three suits which came to be instituted during the lifetime of Kadma Kuar, the first of which is 30 of 1932. This was instituted by Gopinath who claimed to be the next reversioner upon the ground that he being the sister s son of Kanhaiyalal, had become an heir preferential to the present appellant and his brothers because of the passing of the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act of 1929. To this suit Maheshwari Bibi and Kadm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1965 Supreme(SC) 139

Cases Referred (1)