Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.SUBBA RAO, MANOHAR PERSHAD
Kapila Annapurnamma - Appellant
Versus
Panchalavarupu Venkata Satya Seeta Ramanjaneyaratnam - Respondent
Decided On : 06-28-57
FAMILY SETTLEMENT - VALIDITY - CONDITIONS - DISPUTE - NECESSITY - GUARDIAN - POWERS - DE FACTO AND DE JURE - DISTINCTION - ORDER 32, RULE 7, C. P. C. - APPLICABILITY - SETTLEMENT DEED - BINDING ON MINOR - COURT'S PERMISSION - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a minor, filed a suit for a declaration that the settlement deed executed between her father and defendants 1 to 4 was not binding on her, for possession of the B schedule properties after ejecting defendants 1 to 9, for past mesne profits, and for the recovery of the C schedule moveable properties or their value. The defendants contended that the settlement deed was a valid and bona fide transaction, binding on the plaintiff, and that it was beneficial to her. The trial court held that the settlement deed was void and not binding on the plaintiff, and granted her the reliefs claimed.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the settlement deed was valid and binding on the plaintiff. It observed that there was a bona fide dispute between the parties at the time of the settlement, and that the plaintiff's father, though not her natural or lawful guardian, could act as her de facto guardian and had the power to enter into the settlement deed on her behalf. The Court further held that Order 32, Rule 7, C. P. C. was not applicable to the case, as it did not contemplate an agreement being made after the decree.
Issues: 1. Whether the settlement deed was a valid and bona fide transaction, binding on the plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiff's father had the power to act as her guardian and enter into the settlement deed on her behalf? 3. Whether Order 32, Rule 7, C. P. C. was applicable to the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A family settlement is valid and binding on the parties if there is a bona fide dispute between them, and if the settlement is for the benefit of the family generally. 2. A de facto guardian has the same powers as a de jure guardian, and can enter into a settlement deed on behalf of a minor if it is for the benefit of the minor. 3. Order 32, Rule 7, C. P. C. does not apply to agreements made after the decree.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the second defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It also dismissed the plaintiff's appeal without costs.
( 1 ) THE suit O. S. No. 56 of 1947 out of which these two appeals No. 159 of 1952 on behalf of the second defendant and the other No. 167 of 1952 on behalf of the plaintiff arise was filed by Poanchalavarapu Venkata Satya Sitha Ramanjaneya Ratnam for a declaration that the settlement deed dated 2-2-1942 executed between the plaintiffs father and defendants 1 to 4 was not binding on her, for possession of the B schedule properties after ejecting defendants 1 to 9, for past mesne profits to the extent of Rs. 878-11-0 from the third defendant on item 4 of the B schedule property together with future profits and interest thereon and for the recovery of the C schedule moveable properties or their value Rs. 315. 00. The plaintiff in O. S. 56 of 1947 is the daughter of the 10th defendant and the widow of the late Panchalavarapu Venkata Satya Surya Prakasa Rao. The first defendant is the mother of the late Venkata Satya Surya Prakasa Rao. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sisters of the late Prakasa Rao. The 5th defendant is the husband of the 3rd defendant. The 4th defendant is the son of defendants 3 and 5. Defendants 5, 6 and 7 are divided brothers and sons of the 8th defendant. The 9th defendant is the alienee of some of the suit properties. The 10th defendant is the father of the plaintiff. The plaint schedule properties belonged to the late Satya Surya Prakasa Rao who died on 19-3-1941. Before his death he executed a will to the effect that all the suit properties should devolve on the plaintiff after his death, with full powers of alienation excepting item 3 of the plaint B schedule in which a life estate was created in favour of the second defendant after her death, a full estate in favour of the plaintiff, with a further direction that the first defendant who was his mother and the mother-in-law of the plaintiff should live with the plaintiff in the family house till her death and in case the first defendant was not willing to live with her, the plaintiff should give her two acres of land for her maintenance and two rooms in the family house for her residence till her death. This will was tendered for registration on 21-4-1941 before the Sub-Registrar, Narsapur, who refused to register it on the objection of the first defendant. On appeal to the District Registrar at Eluru, the order of the Sub-Registrar was confirmed. The plaintiffs next friend, her father, the 10th defendant, filed O. S. No. 43 of 1942 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Narsapur for registration of the will. This suit was decreed on 31-3-1942 and in pursuance of the said decree, the will was registered on 25-4-1942. On 2-2-1942, a settlement deed was executed; under the deed items 1 and 2 of B schedule were given to the first defendant, item 3 to second defendant with full powers of alienation, item 4 to the third defendant for life and after her death absolutely to the 4th defendant and item 5 to defendants 1, 2, and 3 for life with vested remainder in favour of the 4th defendant. C schedule moveable properties worth Rs. 315. 00 were given away to the 1st defendant without being mentioned in the settlement deed. The plaintiff alleges that the said settlement was void in law as the deed was executed on behalf of the plaintiff by the 10th defendant who was not her legal or qualified guardian, She further alleges that the deed was not for her benefit who was a minor then as 1/3 of her husbands estate was given away to defendants 1 to 4 under the deed. She further states that on the date of the deed or prior to it there was no bona fide dispute for settlement among the members of the plaintiffs husbands family. The debts mentioned in the deed were bogus debts and were not subsisting on the date of the settlement, that the first defendant had no authority to adopt a son under the alleged will of her husband and that even if there was any such authority that authority ended as soon as Prakasa Rao executed the will. With regard to the first
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
