1. The validity of a final decree is challenged in this appeal.

2. The plaintiffs, two in number, and defendants, 3 in number, are children of one Kunjukunju and his wife Mythili, on whose death the plaintiffs and defendants became equally entitled to the plaint-A schedule property. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.87 of 1977 for partition of the property. The first defendant raised a contention that the plaintiffs and the other defendants had agreed to sell their shares to him for Rs.42,000/-and the suit for partition was not maintainable. The trial court held that the agreement relied on by the first defendant amounted to a family arrangement and the only right of the plaintiffs and the other defendants was to receive the amounts mentioned in the family arrangement. Two appeals were filed against the decree namely A.S.Nos. 321 of 1982 and 357 of 1982. By a common judgment a Single Judge of this court dismissed the appeals subject to the modification of the decree to the effect that the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 were entitled to get interest also @ 6 % per annum from 30.6.1977, the date on which the first defendant was bound to make the payments to the other sharers. AFA No.87 of 1991 and AFA 108 of 1991 filed against the said common judgment were dismissed on 19.11.1991. In 2011 the first defendant filed an I.A for passing a preliminary decree and another I.A, No.544 of 2011, for passing a final decree. The learned Sub Judge passed a final decree directing the first defendant to deposit Rs.42,000/-with interest as directed by this court in the decree in AS No.321 of 1982 and 357 of 1982. The interlocutory application filed for passing a preliminary decree was dismissed in view of the passing of the final decree. Thereafter, the first defendant filed E.P.116 of 2012 for execution of the final decree and he deposited the amount he was bound to deposit under the decree. The validity of the final decree is assailed in this appeal.

3. Heard Sri.K.S.Hariharaputhran and Sri.Azad Babu appearing for the first defendant appellant and the respondents respectively.

4. To understand the case in its right perspective it is necessary to bear in mind the legal consequence of a family arrangement. A family arrangement is made in lieu of partition. (Hiraji Tolagi Bhagwan v. Shakuntala AIR 1990 SC 619). It is partition by way of family settlement (Ramaswamy v. Venkitamal (AIR 1965 Madras 193). In this decision it is observed that a family arrangement has two fold character namely a partition and a settlement. In Digambar Adhar Patil v. Devram Girdhar Patil (AIR 1995 SC 1728) the Supreme Court has held that even a family arrangement is enough to effectuate a partition. There cannot be any doubt that a family arrangement is as good as a partition. Once the court is satisfied that there has been a family arrangement it is its duty to recognize and sustain it. (K.V.Narayan v. K.V.Ranganathan AIR 1976 SC 1715).

5. In this case the decision of the trial court that there has been a family arrangement between the parties has become final with the confirmation of the decree by this court in the appeal suits and the appeals against the first appeals also.

6. The finding of the court that there has been a family arrangement between the parties necessarily means that the prayer of the plaintiffs for partition of the property was refused. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, so the question of passing a final decree for partition does not arise. But Sri.Azad Babu, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that this court in the common judgment in A.S.No.321 of 1982 and A.S.No.357 of 1982 has held that on the failure of the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs.42,000/-with interest the respondents would be at liberty to apply for passing a final decree for partition.(vide paragraph 18). This necessitates consideration of the nature of the decree passed by the trial court as confirmed by this court.

7. The explanation to Sec