Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
K. RAMASWAMY, J.
C. Prabhu Rajarao & Others - Appellants
Versus
Ch. Thirupathamma & Others - Respondents
A.S. No. 243/80
Decided on : 5-8-1987
FAMILY ARRANGEMENT - REGISTRATION - COMPULSORY REGISTRABLE DOCUMENT - EXEMPTION - DECREE OR ORDER BASED ON COMPROMISE - SUBJECT-MATTER OF SUIT - FAMILY SETTLEMENT - BONA FIDE - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ANTECEDENT TITLE - DISPOSING POWER - PASUPU KUNKAMA - REASONABLE PORTION OF JOINT FAMILY PROPERTIES.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a suit for recovery of possession of certain properties, alleging that their father, Punnaiah, had disposed of the properties without authority under various sale deeds. The 1st respondent, Punnaiah's mother, had earlier filed a suit for maintenance against Punnaiah and his father, Krishnaiah, which was settled through a compromise recorded as a decree, Ex. B-1. The compromise provided for the distribution of properties among the parties, with life estates for Punnaiah and Krishnaiah and vested remainders for the appellants. The appellants contended that Ex. B-1 was a family arrangement and that Punnaiah had no power to alienate the properties after the compromise. The respondents contended that Ex. B-1 was a compulsorily registrable document and was inadmissible for want of registration, and that the appellants were not the legitimate children of Punnaiah.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Ex. B-1 was not a compulsorily registrable document as it was a family arrangement and not a document creating a right, title, or interest for the first time. The court also held that the appellants were the legitimate children of Punnaiah. The court further held that Punnaiah had no disposing power over the properties after the compromise recorded as Ex. B-1, and that the sales made by him were not binding on the appellants.
Issues: 1. Whether Ex. B-1 is a compulsorily registrable document. 2. Whether the appellants are the legitimate children of Punnaiah. 3. Whether Punnaiah had the power to alienate the properties after the compromise recorded as Ex. B-1.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A decree or order based on a compromise is exempt from compulsory registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, to the extent that it relates to the subject-matter of the suit. 2. A family arrangement is a bona fide settlement of disputes between family members, and it is not necessary for it to be supported by a pre-existing legal claim. 3. A family arrangement is binding on the parties and creates rights and obligations that are enforceable in law. 4. A person who has only a life estate in a property does not have the power to alienate the property.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The decree of the trial court was set aside in respect of the properties covered by the sale deeds Ex. B-16, B-2, B-13, and B-8, and a decree was passed in favor of the appellants. The decree of the trial court was confirmed in respect of the other properties.
JUDGMENT :
1. The 1st appellant is the son and the 2nd and the 3rd appellants are the daughters of C. Punnaiah The 1st respondent-Ist defendant, Tirupatamma, is their mother. Their suit for recovery of possession of B, C and D schedule properties, except the land in an extent of half of Ac. 0-45 1 ½ cents of the northern half of Ac. 0-91 cents in D. No. 341/A in items 5 of the D schedule, was dismissed. As against the decree of dismissal, this appeal has been filed.
2. The facts of this appeal are as follows: In the year 1946 there arose disputes between their father, Punnaiah, and mother, the 1st respondent, resulting in the 1st respondent filing a suit, O.S. No. 146 of 1947, for maintenance for herself and the 3rd appellant. In that suit, Punniah was impleaded as the 1st defendant and her father-in-law as the 2nd defendant. However, at the instance of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and others, a compromise was effected and a compromise memo., was filed. A decree ensued thereunder. In the compromise the terms are as follows.
“(1) that the 1st plaintiff do live with her husband, the 1st defendant;
(2) that the 1st defendant do maintain plaintiffs 1 and 2 and lead a family life with his wife, the 1st plaintiff, and perform the marriage of the 2nd plaintiff;
(3) that the 1st plaintiff do discharge the debts contracted by her from out of the usufruct of the land of Ac. 4-0 in Poranki given to her by her father; and that she shall enjoy the said property during her lifetime and the said property shall, after her life lime, pass on to her male issues with absolute rights and if there are to male issues, it shall pass on to her female issues with absolute rights;
(4) that defendants 1 and 2 do give up their contest regarding division between themselves, that Mangamma (1st defendant's mother and 2nd defendant’ wife) do enjoy during her life time the usufruct on the land of Ac. 3-50 cents in D. No. 13 in patta No. 924 and that after her death, the 2nd defendant shall enjoy during his life time the usufruct therefrom, and that after his (2nd defendant's) death, the 1st defendant shall likewise enjoy the same without any right to sell; and that after his (1st defendant's) death the properties shall devolve on his children with absolute rights;
(5) that the 1st defendant do enjoy and maintain his family with the usufruct from his lands in D. No. 250 A, 341-A and 265-B without any absolute rights and that after his death, the said lands shall pass to his children with full rights;
(6) that in case of separation between the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant, the 1st plaintiff shall enjoy only the usufruct from out of Ac. 3-0 of land called Pathurivari Chenu in D. No. 270 and that after her death, it shall devolve on the 1st defendant;
(7) that in case the 1st defendant has no issues, he shall exercise full rights over lands given to him as a life estate;
(8) ....
(9) that the parties be at liberty to enforce the terms of this compromise in court thorugh process of execution and to get this compromise decree registered in the Office of the Registrar;”
3. Subsequently plaintiffs 1 and 2 were born on May 18, 1955 and May 6, 1951 respectively. It is their case that contrary to the terms of the compromise, their father has disposed of the properties, for which he has no power, under Ex. B-25, settlement deed, dated November 21, 1956 in favour of his sister, the 2nd defendant, Ex. B-16 dated May 4, 1965, sale deed executed in her favour in respect of item 3 of D schedule, Ex. B-2, sale deed, dated May 4, 1965 in favour of the 3rd defendant in respect of item 4 of D schedule, Ex. B-13, sale deed, dated August 14, 1968 in respect of item 3 of B schedule in favour of the 4th defendant, Ex. B-8, sale deed, dated Sep-tember 29, 1967 in favour of the 6th defendant in respect of item 2 of B schedule. It is their case that the sales are not binding on them. In the appeal the suit is not pressed as against the claims of defendants 5 and 7 to 10. Therefore, it is not necessary
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
