Family arrangements are governed by a special equity and will be enforced if honestly made. The beneficiaries of a family arrangement are precluded from claiming partition of the properties allotted to others.

The plaintiffs in a suit for partition are the appellants.

2. The plaint schedule property belonged to Andruman, the father of plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 4. First defendant was the wife of Andruman who died pending suit. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are entitled to 2/9th share in the plaint schedule property. Defendants 2 to 4 contested the suit contending, among others, that on the death of Andruman the plaint schedule property was partitioned orally among his legal representatives; that the plaint schedule property was allotted to defendants 2 to 4 as per terms of the said oral partition and that the plaintiffs have no right in the plaint schedule property. They have also contended that pursuant to the said oral partition, the plaint schedule property was sold by them to the fifth defendant.

3. Despite the contentions aforesaid, both sides have not adduced any oral evidence. The defendants, however, produced five documents which were marked as Exts.B1 to B5. The trial court accepted the case of oral partition set up by defendants 2 to 4 and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs took up the matter in appeal before the lower appellate court and the lower appellate court, on a reappraisal of the materials on record, confirmed the decision of the trial court. The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the concurrent decisions of the courts below and hence this second appeal.

4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the defendants 2 to 5.

5. Among the documents produced by the defendants, Ext.B1 is an affidavit filed by the plaintiffs in a proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode and Ext.B2 is an agreement entered into between the legal representatives of the deceased Andruman. It is seen that as per Ext.B2 agreement, the properties held jointly by the legal representatives of Andruman were partitioned among themselves and the sharers started possessing the properties separately. Item No.19 in Ext.B2 is the plaint schedule property. It is also seen from Ext.B2 that the plaint schedule property is a property held by defendants 2 to 4. Ext.B1 affidavit indicates the plaintiffs have stated before the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode that the properties held by Andruman were partitioned among his legal representatives on his death. A copy of Ext.B2 agreement is also seen produced before the Land Tribunal in the said proceedings. It is on the basis of the said documents, the courts below came to the conclusion that the properties held by the parties on the death of Andruman were orally partitioned among them and therefore the plaintiffs are estopped from taking a stand contrary to the terms of Ext.B2 agreement.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that Ext.B2 is only an agreement to partition the properties and a document to effect partition by metes and bounds, has not been executed among the parties and therefore the decisions rendered by the courts below on the basis of Ext.B2 agreement are unsustainable.

7. The fact that Ext.B2 agreement was executed among the sharers is not in dispute. The fact that the plaintiffs have filed Ext.B1 affidavit before the Land Tribunal stating that the property held by the parties jointly on the death of Andruman have been partitioned among them is also not in dispute. True, a partition deed evidencing partition of the properties was not executed among the sharers. Even the contention of defendants 2 to 4 is only that there was an oral partition among the sharers. Ext.B2 agreement is relied on by the defendants only to establish the case of oral partition set up by them. It is settled that there can be a family arrangement among the members of a family descending from a common ancestor to settle and resolve their conflicting claims or disputed titles to properties. Family arrangements are governed by a special equity peculiar to themselves, and will be enforced if honestly made. The object of the family arrangement is to protect the