A family arrangement requires consideration, other than love and affection, the nature of that consideration varying with different cases. Forbearance-from litigation, bona fide settlement of disputed claims or rights and preservation of peace may constitute a good consideration for a family arrangement.

Headnote:
FAMILY ARRANGEMENT - ESSENTIALS - CONSIDERATION - GIFT - REGISTRATION - ESTOPPEL.
Fact of the Case:

In 1905, a compromise decree was passed in a title suit between Ramjatan Rai and Baldeo Rai, whereby Ramjatan Rai obtained 8 bighas of kasht land and half of -/1/6 proprietary share from Baldeo Rai. Baldeo Rai died in 1930, and his widow died in 1347 (corresponding to 1940). On her death, a dispute arose between Janki Rai, the adopted son of Baldeo Rai, and the defendants about possession of the property covered by the compromise decree. This led to the initiation of a proceeding under Sec.144 of the Criminal P. C., which ended in a compromise on 12-12-40. By this compromise the sons of Ramjatan Rai were permitted to enter into possession of the land given to him under the compromise decree of 1905. Janki Rai raised this action to re-cover possession of the property in the hands of the respondents.
Finding of the Court:

The Courts below concurrently found that Janki Rai was the adopted son of Baldeo and inherited his properties by survivorship. The only material question which was canvassed in the Courts below arid has also been raised in this Second Appeal is whether the defendants-respondents acquired any valid title to the disputed land by virtue of the compromise decree in Title Suit No. 68 of 1905.
Issues: 1. Whether the compromise decree of 1905 was void for want of consideration and cannot be given effect to? 2. Whether the alienation of the property to the defendants by this compromise without consideration amounted to a gift which was unenforceable at law, as it was not effected by registered instrument? 3. Whether the defendants acquired any valid title to the disputed land by virtue of the compromise decree in Title Suit No. 68 of 1905?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The compromise decree of 1905 cannot be supported as a family arrangement as there was no dispute at all between Ramjatan and Baldeo; there was no question of preservation of family peace or family property; nor was there any settlement of doubtful right or doubtful claim. 2. The transaction involved in the settlement of 1905 was a transaction of gift, and, as it was not effected by a registered instrument, it was void under Sec.25 of the Contract Act. 3. The compromise in the proceedings under Section. 144, Criminal Procedure Code, could not make the compromise of 1905 valid, because an assent to a void instrument was also void.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the Courts below are set aside and the suit is decreed with costs throughout, The plaintiffs will be entitled to mesne profits from the date of dispossession, that is from Asarh, 1348 fasli (corresponding to July 1941) till the delivery of possession. The amount of mesne profits will be determined in subsequent proceeding.

Judgment

Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for possession with mesne profits. The following pedigree will show the relationship between the parties:

SUBASH RAI

______________|__________________

| |

Ajgaibi Rai Chhatan Rai

______|_______________ |

| | Ramsaran Rai

Dwarika Rai Lalji Rai |

___|________________ Baldeo Rai

| | |

Ramjatan Rai Ramnandan Rai |

| | |

| | Adopted son--Janki Rai

| | (Plaintiff)

| |________________

| ______|_______

| | |

| Mahesh Rai Brahmdeo Rai

|____________ (Deft. 7) (Deft. 8)

__________|__________

| |

Surajnath Rai Kalapnath Rai

(Defdt. 1) |

_____________|_____________

| | |

Shutnar Rai Khowari Rai Ramchandra Rai

(Deft.2) (Deft. 3) (Deft. 4)

________|______________

| |

Jamuna Rai Awadh Rai

(Deft. 5) (Deft.6)

. The disputed property forms part of the estate of Baldeo Rai deceased. Baldeo Rai was the descendant of Chhatan Rai. The defendants are the descendants of Ajgaibi Rai, full-brother of Chhatan Rai, Both the branches of the family were separate in mess and" property, and Raldeo Rai was the sole surviving member in the joint family of Chhatan Rai, which was possessed of 24 bighas 17 kathas 3 dhurs of Kasht land, and some zamindary property.

Baldeo Rai had no son, and there is no dispute that on his death the respondents would have succeeded to his estate. But it appears that sometime before 1905 Baldeo Rai adopted Janki Rai (plaintiff since deceased) as his son and got all his properties mutated, in the name of his adopted son. Ramjatan Rai, the ancestor of the defehdants instituted a title suit No. 68 of 1905, for a declaration that Janki Rai had not been taken in adoption by Baldeo Rai, that the adoption was not legal and valid and that his right to succeed to the properties of Baldeo Rai, on the latters death, was not at all affected. The suit was eventually compromised and a consent decree was passed incorporating the terms of the compromise. Under this compromise Ramjatan Rai obtained 8 bighas out of the kasht land and half of -/1/6 proprietary share. He was, however, not given right to immediate possession of the property given to him. The compromise decree provided that Baldeo Rai and his wife would remain in possession of the entire property for there life and Ramjatan Kai: would be entitled to enter into possession of the land, given to him only after their death.

Baldea Rai died in" 1930, and his widow died in 1347 (corresponding to 1940). On her death, a dispute arose between Janki Rai, the adopted son of Baldeo Rai, and the defendants about possession of the property covered by the compromise decree. This led to the initiation of a proceeding under Sec.144 of the Criminal P. C., which ended in a compromise on 12-12-40. By this compromise the sons of Ramjatan Rai were permitted to enter into possession of the land given to him under the compromise decree of 1905. It is this land which forms the subject-matter of the present litigation.

On 17-2-1943, Janki Rai raised this action to re- -cover possession of the property in the hands of the respondents. His case was that the compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 68 of 1905 was illegal and invalid and did not confer any title on Ram-jatan Rai and his descendants, because it was void both for want of consideration and want of registration. His further case was that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1957 Supreme(Pat) 68

PATNA HIGH COURTV.Ramaswami and Kanhaiya Singh JJ.Mt.Kauleshwari KuerVersusSurajnath RaiAppeal From Appellate Decree No. 52 of 1949 ;Decided On : MARCH 05, 1957

Cases Referred (4)

PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Kanhaiya Singh JJ.
Mt.Kauleshwari Kuer
Versus
Surajnath Rai
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 52 of 1949 ;
Decided On : MARCH 05, 1957