The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and binding nature of family settlements under Hindu Mitakshara Law, emphasizing the voluntary nature of the agreement, absence of coercion or fraud, and the principles of family arrangements.

M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.

1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit for partition and declaration that Ext. B13 (copy of the same is Ext. A1) is not binding on him. He claims 1/4 share in the properties.

2. Grandfather of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 had two sons, Raman Ezhuthachan and Krishnan Ezhuthachan. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are the sorts of Krishnan Ezhuthachan and 4th defendant is his widow. Raman Ezhuthahan died as a bachelor. Raman Ezhuthachan and Krishnan Ezhuthachan died in an epidemic in 1115 M.E. It is the case of the plaintiff that under a mistaken belief that the 4th defendant is also entitled to a share in the properties and due to pressure exerted on him Ext. B13 agreement was executed on 13-8-1975 to divide the properties among himself and the defendants. Plaintiff contended that the terms and conditions in Ext. B13 were not adhered to while Ext. B14 was executed purporting to divide the properties, that there is a fundamental mistake in the agreement as the 4th defendant was given a share in the properties that he was not informed of the execution of Ext. B14, and that it is not binding on him.

3. Defendants contended that plaintiff is estopped from challenging Ext. B14, that Ext. B13 is a valid family settlement and that pursuant to it Ext. B14 partition deed was executed. The Trial Court held that Ext. B14 partition deed was made in conformity with Ext. B13 agreement and no departure has been made therefrom at least as far as the plaintiff is concerned and in such circumstances it cannot be said that Ext. B14 is either incomplete or inoperative.

4. Admittedly the parties are governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. Contention of the plaintiff is that his mother (4th defendant) is not entitled to any share in the properties and so Ext. B13 which gives a share to her suffers from a fundamental mistake and consequently Ext. B14 purporting 1 to divide the properties is not binding on him. Thus, his main plank of defence is that Ext. B13 is vitiated by the fundamental mistake of allotting the 4th defendant a share whereas she is actually not entitled to it. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the parties were under a mistake that the 4th defendant is entitled to a share and so no weight can be attached to Ext. B13 which detrimentally affects plaintiffs legitimate share. He argued that if the 4th defendant has no share in the properties plaintiff is very well entitled to 1/4 share along with defendants 1 to 3 and as the suit is precisely for that share the Sub Judge ought to have decreed it.

5. Plaintiff is a signatory to Ext. B13 along with defendants 1 to 4 In Ext. B13 it is stated that A schedule properties are jointly set apart to defendants 1 to 4 and B schedule to the plaintiff. It is also stated that the partition deed will be registered after 12-9-1975 and before 20-9-1975 and that the parties will take separate possession. Defendants contended that despite their best efforts plaintiff did not join in the execution of Ext. B14 and by dissociating himself from it he cannot back out from the terms and conditions he had agreed to in Ext. B13. It is pertinent to note that in Ext. B14 also the very same properties are set apart to the plaintiff as in Ext. B13.

6. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that Ext. B14 is not consistent with Ext. B13 as defendants 1 to 4 were allotted properties separately, whereas in Ext. B13 it is stated that they will form one group. That does not in any manner affect the right of the plaintiff to the properties set apart to him as B schedule in Ext. B13, Another contention is that though Ext. B13 contemplates some properties to be given to the sisters of defendants 1 to 3 Ext. B14 is totally silent about it. That by itself is not sufficient to hold that Exts. B13 and B14 are not binding on the plaintiff. It is next contended that Ext. B14 is incomplete as the plaintiff has not signed it though the intention of the parties was that it should be signed by the p