Back
S.B. Sinha, Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Ranganayakamma and another - Appellants
Versus
K.S. Prakash (D) by L.Rs. and others - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3635 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4055 of 2006)
Decided On: 16-05-2008
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 6 Rule 7 - Departure from pleading - The pleadings of a party in earlier suit are binding on it in the subsequent proceedings proprio vigore - Unless fraud is proved it cannot get rid of the same. (Para 23)
Partition Act, 1893 - Section 4 - Partition of joint family property - A partition by metes and bounds may not always be possible - A family settlement in entered into for achieving a larger purpose, viz., achieving peace and harmony in the family. (Para 24)
Hindu Law - Joint family - When a son gets a property from his father, as soon as sons are born to him, a joint family is constituted. (Para 26)
Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 16 - Voidable document - A void document is not required to be avoided whereas a viodable document must be - If a plea is to be raised and evidence is required to be addressed that there has been a fraudulent misrepresentation as regards the character of partition deed and in absence of any particulars having been furnished as regards alleged fraud and misrepresentation, the deed would not be void but only voidable - When a contract is said to be voidable by reason of coercion, misrepresentation or fraud, the particulars thereof are required to be pleaded. (Paras 32, 37 & 38)
Partition Act, 1893 - Section 4 - Partition of a joint family property - Family settlement - The court shall apply the statute for upholding the compromise unless it is otherwise vitiated in law - It is not required to go into the question as to whether the contents of the said settlement are correct or not -Only in a case where fraud on the party or fraud on the court has been alleged or established, the court shall treat the same to be a nullity - Fraud vitiates all solemn acts. (Para 40)
Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 25 r/w - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 122 and 123 - Release of share out of love and affection - In a partition deed - A deed of 'release' for a consideration is a transaction and such deed is required to contain particulars of consideration - However, relinquishment of a property by a sister in favour of her brother for a consideration or absence of it, stands on a different footing - Release by an heir other than a coparcener does not need any Consideration - A release is valid even without consideration - Consideration even in the Indian context would mean a reasonable equivalent or other valuable benefit passed on by the promisor to the promisee or by the transferor to the transferee - love and affection is also a consideration within the meaning of Ss. 122 & 123 of T. P. Act. (Paras 43, 47, 48 &51)
Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 59 - Setting aside the deed of partition - Period of limitation - Applicability of Article 59 would indisputably depend upon the question as to whether the deed of partition was required to be set aside or not - In the present case the deed of partition being not void ab initio was required to be set aside within three years - Suit was barred by limitation. (Para 57)
1960 (2) SCR 253; (2006)4 SCC 658; 2006(7) SCC 365, (2006) 8 SCC 726, (2006)5 SCC 353; (2004)8 SCC 588; (2005) 10 SCC 465; (2006)5 SCC 638; (2005) 11 SCC 314; AIR 1954 Orissa 80; 2008 (3) SCALE 556; AIR 1999 Delhi 156; (1967)1 SCR 275; AIR 1968 Mad. 159, AIR 1977 Mad. 10; AIR 1932 All 174; (1973)2 SCC 127; 2008 (4) SCALE 278; AIR 1997 SC 1411; 2006 (10) SCALE 596; 2006 (14) SCALE 156 - Referred to.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
There exists a legal presumption that a family holding joint properties and running joint business constitutes a joint family (!) .
The pleadings in earlier suits are binding in subsequent proceedings, and unless fraud is proven, parties cannot escape the binding effect of their previous pleadings (!) .
A family settlement entered into for the purpose of maintaining peace and harmony in the family is generally upheld by courts, especially when it is based on mutuality and good faith, and is acted upon by the parties (!) (!) .
The validity of a registered document is generally presumed, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging its authenticity to establish fraud or misrepresentation (!) (!) .
When a document is prima facie valid, it is presumed to be genuine, and allegations of fraud or misrepresentation must be specifically pleaded and proved (!) (!) .
Particulars of fraud or misrepresentation must be clearly pleaded; vague allegations are insufficient to establish such claims (!) (!) .
A deed of partition, especially if acted upon and accepted by the parties, is considered valid and binding unless it is proved to be obtained through fraud or misrepresentation (!) (!) .
A family arrangement or settlement, entered into to resolve disputes or to promote harmony, is generally protected and upheld by courts, provided it is bona fide and not contrary to law or public policy (!) (!) .
The doctrine that a document or act that is void ab initio does not require formal cancellation applies, meaning such documents are considered null and have no legal effect from the outset (!) .
Consideration in family settlements or relinquishments can be nominal or even absent, especially when based on love and affection, which are recognized as valid considerations under applicable law (!) (!) .
The execution of powers of attorney and related documents is presumed valid, and unless challenged with specific evidence of fraud, they are considered to have been executed voluntarily and with awareness of their nature (!) (!) .
The limitation period for challenging or setting aside a deed or settlement depends on whether the deed is deemed void or voidable, with the latter requiring action within a specified period after the facts become known (!) (!) .
When a party has acted upon a settlement or deed, such as executing leases or receiving rents, it indicates acceptance and awareness, reinforcing the validity of the transaction (!) (!) .
A document obtained through undue influence, coercion, or misrepresentation must be specifically pleaded and proved; general allegations are inadequate (!) (!) .
The legal principles emphasize that family settlements and partition deeds, especially when acted upon, are presumed valid unless clear and specific evidence of fraud or illegality is presented (!) (!) .
The court tends to uphold agreements entered into in good faith for family harmony, and the burden to prove invalidity due to fraud or misrepresentation rests on the party challenging the document (!) (!) .
The concept of relinquishment or release without consideration, especially among close relatives, is recognized as valid under the law (!) (!) .
The legal framework supports the view that family arrangements aimed at peace and harmony, even if not supported by substantial consideration, are enforceable unless they are tainted with fraud or contrary to law (!) .
These points collectively highlight the importance of clear pleadings, the presumption of validity for registered documents, the enforceability of family settlements, and the necessity of specific proof to challenge such transactions on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation.
JUDGMENT
S.B. SINHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st September, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in R.F.A. No. 605 of 1997 dismissing an appeal preferred from the judgment and decree dated 27th May, 1997 passed by the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Original Suit No.1760 of 1990 partly decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession.
We may, at the outset, notice the genealogical tree of the family which is as under :-
Kasetty Rangappa Widow Smt. Naramma
Lakshamamma Naramma 2nd Wife
Smt. Venkatamm
K. Sreeni Smt.Singaramma 1st wife Smt. Venkatalakshamma 2nd wife
Harida Salu
K.R. Venkatesulu
KR. Sreenivasalu
Children of the 1st Wife Children of the 2nd Wife
Smt. Naramma 1. Smt. Jayamma, Deft. No.3 1. Sri K.S. Mohan
2. Smt. Kanthamma, Plff. No.1 2. Smt. Susheela (Late)
3. Smt. Ranganayakamma, Plff No. 1 3. Smt. Bhagyalakshmi 4. Smt.Naramma Devi, Deft. No.4 Lakshmi 4. Smt. Lakshmi Devi
5. Smt. Venajakshi 5. Sri K.S. Sudarshan
6. Sri K.S. Prakash, Deft. No.1 6. Smt. Saraswathi
7. Sri K.S. Ramesh, Deft. No.2 7. Smt. Rukmini
8. Smt. Sarojamma, Deft. No.5 8. Sri Sreenivasa Prasad
9. Smt. Seethqalakshmi, Deft. No.6 9. Smt. Padmavathi
10. Smt. Bharathi, Deft. No.7
11. Smt. Kum. Shoba, Deft. No.8
3. We are concerned herein with the branch of K. Sreenivasulu. He had two wives, the first wife being Singaramma. Through his first wife Singaramma, he had eleven children. Except Venajakshi, they are parties to the suit. Kanthamma and Ranganayakamma are the plaintiffs. Through his second wife, Shri K. Sreenivasulu had nine children.
4. Allegedly there was a partnership firm through which K. Sreenivasulu was doing business in silk sarees. Whether the said partnership was a firm constituted under the Partnership Act, 1932 or a Hindu joint family Firm is in dispute. However, the said firm was said to have been dissolved. Thereafter K. Sreenivasulu had been carrying on the said business either by himself or as a `Karta of the joint family in silk sarees. Very valuable properties were acquired by him. Three items of the said properties are involved in this appeal. Item No. 1 is said to be worth 1 crore. Item Nos. 2 is stated to be worth 3 crores, whereas Item No.4 is said to be worth 1 crore. Although valuations of the said properties are stated by the contesting respondents i.e. respondents Nos. 1 & 2 in their written statement so as to put forth a contention that the valuation of the suit properties as disclosed by the plaintiff being Rs.10,000/- was not correct and on the aforementioned amounts the court fee would be payable, but there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the properties are valuable.
As through the first wife, Sreenivasulu did not have any male issue, he married Venkatalakshamma. Allegedly item Nos. 2 and 3 of the suit properties were purchased in the name of Sringaramma. The parties are at issue whether the said properties were purchased from the joint family funds or in the name of Srirangama for her own benefit. Indisputably, again item No.1 was purchased by Sreenivasulu in his own name. He died on 27th December, 1970. The family allegedly continued to remain joint. One of the daughters of Sreenivasulu being Vanajakshi released her rights by getting a consideration of Rs.39,615.79. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein, sons of K. Sreenivasulu through Singaramma were the junior members of the family. At the time of her death of Sreenivasulu, they were minors.
5. Indisputably, a suit for partition being O.S. No. 2459 of 1982 was filed by the first respondent K.S. Prakash besides others. Whereas, according to the appellants, the said suit was filed by way of machination on the part of respondent No.1 herein but admittedly all the parties were plaintiffs therein.
6. The plaint in the said suit discloses that Sreenivasulu and his brothers partitioned their properties in the year 1957 who constituted a Joint
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
