Chitambaresh, J.

The brother sets up a 'family settlement' in a bid to coerce his siblings to agree for property in lieu of that settled on them by their father.

2. One Oommen Simon died on 7.8.1986 leaving behind his widow, one son and six daughters as his legal heirs who are all parties to O.S.No.79/1989 which is taken as the lead suit. The son is the plaintiff and the widow and daughters are the defendants in the suit which is one for partition and for a direction to execute a deed of conveyance. Such deed is sought to be executed in furtherance of Ext.A1 agreement dated 16.9.1986 conceding to re-partition the property earlier owned by Oommen Simon. The parties are referred to as per their rank in O.S.No.79/1989 which was disposed of along with O.S.Nos.67/1991, 68/1991 and 98/1991 and evidence was recorded in common. Defendant No.7 filed O.S.No.67/1991 for declaration of title and recovery of possession and O.S.No.68/1991 for partition of property. Defendant No.6 filed O.S.No.98/1991 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of property and all the suits were disposed of by the common judgment impugned. The court below has dismissed O.S.No.79/1989 and decreed O.S.Nos.67/1991 and 98/1991 declaring the title and granting recovery of possession. A preliminary decree for partition has also been passed in O.S.No.68/1991 granting 1/6 and 2/21 shares over item No.1 and items Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has come up in appeals and the cardinal issue to be considered in the case is as to whether Ext.A1 agreement could be construed as a 'family settlement'.

3. We heard Mr. S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, Senior Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant and Mr. K.P.Satheesan, Senior Advocate on behalf of the defendants/respondents.

4. It is in evidence that Oommen Simon had executed Ext.B8 settlement deed in favour of the defendant No.7 and Ext.B13 settlement deed in favour of the defendant No.6 on 14.5.1985. Oommen Simon had also executed Ext.B11 settlement deed on the same date in favour of defendants 2 to 7 who are his daughters excluding his wife and son. It transpires that Oommen Simon had even earlier executed settlement deeds (Document Nos.2859/1984, 2861/1984 & 2870/1984) in favour of defendants 3, 4 and 5. This is in addition to a settlement deed (Document No.2871/1984) in favour of the plaintiff and his wife and a Will (Document No.III/37/1984) which are not produced. All the above documents have been registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Adoor within whose jurisdiction Oommen Simon allegedly owned 5 cents of land. Nobody has impeached the settlement deeds hitherto and no evidence has been let in to show that Oommen Simon did not own property at Adoor to enable registration. There is also no plea that the settlement deeds have not been acted upon or that the mutation have not been effected in the revenue records pursuant thereto.

5. It is admitted that defendant No.7 is not a signatory to Ext.A1 agreement and it remains to be adjudged as to how the same would affect her rights prejudicially. The agreement opens by stating that the property requires to be re-partitioned and nothing at all is mentioned about the execution of the settlement deeds and Will referred to earlier. It is also stated therein that the plaintiff deserves to get 84 cents (item No.3 of the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.79/1989) towards his share. The compensation for the acquisition of 1.67 acres (item No.2 of the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.79/1989) is to be divided into eight equal shares for the mother and 7 children. The agreement in addition states that the property of extent 3.18 acres and 1 acre deserves to be allotted to defendant Nos.2 to 7 in equal shares to the exclusion of the plaintiff. There is another clause in the agreement which emphasises the need to pay maintenance to the first defendant apart from her share of the land acquisition compensation. The necessity to solve the finan