Judgement

SUBBA RAO, J.: This appeal mainly raises the question of the factum and validity of a family arrangement alleged to have been effected between the members of a joint Hindu family. The following genealogy will be useful to appreciate the contentions of the parties:

Peda Venkaiah, Venkateswar Rao, Pulliah the son of Venkatramaiah by his first wife, and Venkatramaiah dies in 1928, 1933, 1936 and 1952 respectively. Peda Venkiah had no ancestral property: all his properties were his self-acquisitions. His eldest son, Venkatramaiah, was not an intelligent man, though he was good enough to look after the cultivation of the lands. His younger son, Narasimha, was an able man in whom the father had confidence and though, he was the younger son, he was helping his father in the management of the family affairs and indeed even during his father s lifetime many properties were purchased in his name. After the death of the father, Narasimha was in charge of the management of the money-lending business and the business at Eluru and was also looking after the Court affairs. During the course of his management large extent of properties were purchased in his name. After the death of Venkatramaiah in 1952, disputes arose between Narasimha and Venkatramaiah s son, Pullaiah, which led to the filing of O. S. No. 69 of 1952 by Pullaiah in the Court of the District Judge, Eluru, against Narasimha and his sons and others for partition of the joint family property by metes and bounds. He impleaded Narasimha and his sons as defendants 1 to 4 and his mother, as defendant 5. The other defendants were persons who had joint interest in some of the family properties.

2. The suit came up before the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, and it was renumbered as O. S. No. 86 of 1954. Defendants 1 to 4 mainly contested the suit on the ground that under the family arrangement the 1st defendant was given three shares in the joint family properties and Venkatramaiah was given two shares therein and that all the properties standing in the name of the 1st defendant were his self-acquisitions:

3. The learned Subordinate Judge, on a consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, held that the properties standing in the name of the 1st respondent were also joint family properties and that ex. B-1, dated November 4, 1939, embodied a family arrangement effected between Venkatramaiah and Narasimha whereunder the 1st defendant s branch would be entitled to 3 shares and the branch of Venkatramaiah would be entitled to 2 shares in all the joint family properties and that the said family arrangement was valid and binding on the plaintiff. In the result he gave a decree to the plaintiff for two-fifths of the joint family properties. It is not necessary to notice the other findings given by the learned Subordinate Judge, as nothing turns upon them in this appeal.

4. On appeal, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court confirmed the view of the learned Subordinate Judge both on the factum and the validity of the family arrangement. Hence the present appeal.

5. Mr. A. K. Sen, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that while in the written-statement the 1st defendant pleaded a family arrangement alleged to have been entered into between him and the plaintiff s (1st appellant herein) guardian, after the death of Venkatramaiah both the Courts went wrong in holding that there was a family arrangement between Venkatramaiah and Narasimha in 1939 on the basis of Ex. B-1. He further contended that Ex. B-1 could not in law sustain the family arrangement as there were no conflicting claims between the parties which could have been resolved by a family arrangement.

6. The first contention turns upon the pleadings and the issues framed thereon. In paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the written-statement, the 1st defendant stated how his father before his death gave directions that when the family properties were divided between him and Venkatramaiah such additional property as mi