1995 Supreme(Pat) 717

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J.
Sheo Nandan Lal
Versus
Jai Ram Lal
First Appeal No. 261 of 1988 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 20, 1995

A family arrangement, being binding on the parties to the arrangement, clearly operates as an estoppel so as to preclude any of the parties who have taken advantage under the agreement from revoking or challenging the same.

Headnote:

PARTITION - FAMILY SETTLEMENT - REGISTRATION - ESTOPPEL - ORAL PARTITION - EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - FAMILY ARRANGEMENT - COLLATERAL PURPOSE.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for partition of the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint according to the share of the parties. According to the plaintiff, the house premises described in the schedule formerly belonged to one Parbat Lal who died in 1955 leaving behind his four sons, namely, Murari Lal, Banwari Lal, Jairarm Lal, and Kanhaiya Lal. Jatram Lal is the plaintiff and Kanhai Lal is defendant No. 8. Murari Lal died about 10 years ago leaving behind defendant Nos. 1,2, and 3 as his son, daughter, and widow respectively. The heirs of Murari Lal inherited the share of Murari Lal in the property in equal share amongst themselves. Similarly, Banwari Lal died five years ago leaving behind defendant Nos. 4,5,6, and 7 as his widow, daughters, and son respectively. Defendant Nos. 4 to 7 inherited the share of Banwari Lal in equal share or proportion. The four sons of Parbat Lal continued in joint possession of the house property even after the death of their father. They agreed to partition the suit property among themselves in equal share i.e. 1/4th share each, but the same was not done by metes and bounds, rather, they continued to live in different portions of the suit house according to their convenience. They started their business separately but the house property remained in joint occupation. After the death of Murari Lal and Banwari Lal their heirs also continued residing in their separate respective portions of the suit house. The ground rent, electricity, and water charges were still being paid jointly to the Tisco, being the landlord, in the joint names of all the four brothers of the plaintiff. It is alleged that during the life time of Banwari Lal, he had taken the signature of all the brothers in some blank paper with an understanding that he would get a partition deed prepared incorporating the fact that each would have equal share in the suit property, but thereafter, Banwari Lal did nothing of the kind because he was occupying almost double the share of the plaintiff. Regarding arrangement and enjoyment of the suit property, dispute cropped up as a result of which on 17th November, 1985 the plaintiff demanded partition from the defendants of the suit house. The said request for partition was refused and hence the suit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a previous partition of the suit property among the parties in 1969, which was evidenced by a deed of family partition (Ext. C) and a map (Ext. D). The court also found that the plaintiff had admitted in his evidence that they began to live separately by mutual consent and that he had denied his signature on the plaint and the vakalatnama attached to the plaint. The court held that the plaintiff was estopped from challenging the family arrangement and that the deed of family partition, though not registered, could be used for collateral purposes to show the nature and character of possession of the parties in pursuance of the family settlement.

Issues: 1. Whether there was a previous partition of the suit property among the parties? 2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from challenging the family arrangement? 3. Whether the deed of family partition, though not registered, can be used for collateral purposes?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A family arrangement, being binding on the parties to the arrangement, clearly operates as an estoppel so as to preclude any of the parties who have taken advantage under the agreement from revoking or challenging the same. 2. A deed of family partition, though not registered, can be used for collateral purposes, namely, for the purpose of showing the nature and character of possession of the parties in pursuance of the family settlement and also for the purpose of applying the rule of estoppel which flowed from the conduct of the parties who having taken benefit under the settlement keep their mouths shut for full seven years and later try to resile from the settlement.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the court below were set aside.