Back
Supreme Court Of India
MATURI PULLAIAH
Versus
Maturi Narasimham
Decided On : March 1, 1966
FAMILY ARRANGEMENT - FACTUM AND VALIDITY - FAMILY ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN MEMBERS OF JOINT HINDU FAMILY - ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS - SCOPE OF FAMILY ARRANGEMENT - INTERPRETATION OF EX. B-1 - VALIDITY OF EX. B-1 - REGISTRATION - S. 17 OF THE INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute arose between Narasimha and Venkatramaiahs 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. The suit came up before the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, and it was renumbered as O. S. No. 86 of 1954. 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 defendant were also joint family properties and that Ex. B-1, dated 4/11/1939, embodied a family arrangement effected between Venkatramaiah and Narasimha whereunder the 1st defendants 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. On appeal, a division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High court confirmed the view of the learned Subordinate Judge both on the factual and the validity of the family arrangement Hence the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The courts found that the properties standing in the name of the 1st defendant were also joint family properties and that Ex. B-1, dated 4/11/1939, embodied a family arrangement effected between Venkatramaiah and Narasimha whereunder the 1st defendants 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.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement and the family arrangement with the father of the plaintiff set up by the 1st defendant is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff. 2. Whether the family arrangement set up by the 1st defendant with the mother of the plaintiff after his fathers death is true, valid and binding on plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A family arrangement is an agreement between members of the same family, intended to be generally and reasonably for the benefit of me family either by compromising doubtful or disputed rights or by preserving the family property or the peace and security of the family by avoiding litigation or by saving its honour. 2. The principles the courts should bear in mind in appreciating the scope of such family arrangement are stated thus; family arrangements are governed by principles which are not applicable to dealings between strangers. The court, when deciding the rights of parties under family arrangements or claims to upset such arrangements, considers what in the broadest view of the matter is most for the interest of families, and has regard to considerations which, in dealing with transactions between persons not members of the same family, would not be taken into account. Matters which would be fatal to the validity of similar transactions between strangers are not objections to the binding effect of family arrangements. 3. Though conflict of legal claims in praesenti or in tuture is generally a condition for the validity of a family arrangement, it is not necessarily so. Even bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims will suffice. Members of a joint Hindu family may, to maintain peace or to bring about harmony in the family, enter into such a family arrangement. If such an arrangement is entered into bona fide and the terms thereof are fair in the circumstances of a particular case. courts will more readily give assent to such an arrangement than to avoid it. 4. The document, Ex. B-1, does not require registration.
Final Decision: The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Judgment
SUBBA RAO,, J.
( 1 ) 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: (See genealogy on next page) Peda Venkaiah, Venkateswara Rao, Pulliah the son of Venkatramaiah by his first wife, and Venkatramaiah died 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 fathers 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 Venkatramaiahs 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 defendant were also joint family properties and that Ex. B-1, dated 4/11/1939, embodied a family arrangement effected between Venkatramaiah and Narasimha whereunder the 1st defendants 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 factual and the validity of the family arrangement Hence the present appeal.
( 5 ) MR. A. K. Sen, learned counsellor 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 plaintiffs (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 defendants stated how his father before his death gave directions that when the family properties were divided between him and V
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
