The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition and enforcement of family arrangements as a means to bring about harmony in a family and settle disputes among the parties involved, even in the absence of antecedent title to the person setting up the family arrangement.

Defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 87 of 1977 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Alleppey, are the appellants in A.S. No. 321 of 1982 and the Ist plaintiff in the same suit is the appellant in A.S. No. 357 of 1982. Suit is for partition.

2. Plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 are children of Kunju Kunju who died in 1976. Mythili is the wife of Kunju Kunju and she died in 1975. Plaint A schedule property originally belonged to Mythili. Her right devolved on her children and each of them was entitled to 1/5 share. Buildings in A schedule are B schedule items 1 and 2. Item No. 1 is the residential building and item 2 is a workshop. These buildings were constructed by Kunju Kunju. Plaint C schedule building belonged to 4th defendant. Kunju Kunju was a tenant under the former owner of the building and he was conducting business in harmonium for the last forty years. The business accessories are C schedule item No. 2 and kept in the workshop. In 1975 Kunju Kunju executed a registered Will whereby he bequeathed his rights to the Ist defendant. Plaintiffs and defendants

2 and 3 had 1/4th share in the assests left by Kunju Kunju. Negotiations for partition failed and according to plaintiffs it was in those circumstances that the suit was filed.

3. In the written statement filed by Ist defendant, he admitted that plaint A schedule property belonged to Mythili, that Kunju Kunju, the husband of Mythili put up the building in A schedule and that Kunju Kunju executed a Will in 1975 bequeathing the building in A schedule to the other co-shares. According to the 1st defendant the workshop was put up by him at his own expenses in A schedule property. The tenancy right in C schedule item No. 1 is in the name of Kunju Kunju. The camera works started in partnership in 1967 was sold to him and he attorned to the landlord and was paying rent. He agreed to purchase the property at a price of Rs. 42,000/- and all the shares were bound by the agreement. The goodwill of harmonium works belonged to him and provisions of the Will executed by Kunju Kunju were superseded by an agreement dated 21-11-1976 referred to above. The movable in C schedule belonged to him. He reported the building by spending Rs. 3,500/- and he had special right over the building. He constructed the workshop at a cost of Rs. 15,000/- and the agreement being a family arrangement it is binding on all the co-sharers. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a written statement supporting the plaint allegations.

4. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, the Court below found that Ext. B1 is a family arrangement and that thereunder the 1st defendant was entitled to purchase the property for Rs. 42,000/-. Accordingly the Court below passed a preliminary decree accepting the family arrangement and allowing the 1st defendant to purchase the B schedule property at the agreed price of Rs. 42,000/-. It also found that out of that Rs. 42,000/- the 1st plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 8,000/-, 2nd plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 12,000/-, 2nd defendant is entitled to Rs. 6,000/- and 3rd defendant is entitled to Rs. 8,000/- towards the value of their share in the property. Ist defendant was directed to pay or deposit the amounts within a period of two months from the date of judgment and to apply for passing a final decree. It also provided that on failure to deposit the amount, the sharers are at liberty to apply for passing of final decree.

5. Learned Advocate-General challenged the finding of the Court below. He contended that all the parties including the Ist defendant accepted the genuineness of the Will, that Ext. B1 is not a family arrangement but can only be treated as an agreement for sale of the share for the stated consideration and that the 1st defendant cannot enforce the agreement in a suit for partition. Learned Advocate-General also contended that the Court below went wrong in holding that Ext. A1 Will was superseded by Ext.B1 agreement. He contended that the