Back
1997 Supreme(Mad) 229
High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Chief Justice Mr. K.A. Swami and The Honourable Mr. Justice Kanakaraj
Arumuga Udayar
Versus
Swamiyar alias Ramasamy Udayar and 3 others
L.P.Appeal No.3 of 1983 and CMP.No.12884 of 1993
Decided On : 15-02-1997
Mr. K. Sarvabhauman, Senior Counsel for Mr. R. Nandakumar, Advocate for the Respondents.
A family arrangement can include properties belonging to all the members of the family, not just coparcenary properties. The purpose of a family arrangement is to settle existing or future disputes and to ensure amity and goodwill among family members.
Headnote:
FAMILY ARRANGEMENT - JOINT FAMILY PROPERTIES - ACT-SECTION REFERRED: INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, SECTION 115 - SUMMARY: The court held that a family arrangement can include properties belonging to all the members of the family, not just coparcenary properties. The purpose of a family arrangement is to settle existing or future disputes and to ensure amity and goodwill among family members. In this case, the court found that there was a valid family arrangement in which the plaintiff received his share of the family properties, including properties belonging to his mother, who was a member of the joint family.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit scheduled properties, claiming that the properties were joint family properties and he was entitled to a 1/4th share. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share as he had been given lands equivalent to his share and a sum of Rs. 10,000 and a house in a family arrangement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a valid family arrangement in which the plaintiff received his share of the family properties, including properties belonging to his mother, who was a member of the joint family. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim partition ignoring the family arrangement.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit properties were joint family properties? 2. Whether the properties purchased by the 1st defendant were purchased out of the surplus income from the family properties? 3. Whether the will executed by Annamalai Udayar is true and valid? 4. Whether items 1 to 4, 20 and 32 are the separate properties of 1st defendant? 5. Whether the settlement deed dated 1. 1967 is true and valid? 6. Whether the present suit is maintainable? 7. To what relief?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following legal principles: 1. A family arrangement can include properties belonging to all the members of the family, not just coparcenary properties. 2. The purpose of a family arrangement is to settle existing or future disputes and to ensure amity and goodwill among family members. 3. Courts will more readily give assent to a family arrangement that is entered into bona fide and the terms thereof are fair in the circumstances of a particular case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and confirmed the judgment of the single judge.
K.A. Swami, CJ.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the Judgment dated 29. 1988 passed by the learned single Judge in A.S.No.1182 of 1980 confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No.117 of 1977 on 5. 1980. The said suit was filed by the appellant herein for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit scheduled properties on the ground that the suit properties are the joint family properties and he, being one of the co-parceners, is entitled to 1/4th share. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share as in a family arrangement, he had been given lands equivalent to his share and in addition to that a sum of Rs. 10,000 and a house had been given to him.
2. The trial Court, on the basis of the Pleadings of the parties, raised the following issues:-
" 1. Whether the B and C Schedule properties are joint family properties?
2. Whether the properties purchased by the 1st defendant were purchased out of the surplus income from the family properties?
3. Whether the will executed by Annamalai Udayar is true and valid?
4. Whether items 1 to 4, 20 and 32 are the separate properties of 1st defendant?
5. Whether the settlement deed dated 1. 1967 is true and valid?
6. Whether the present suit is maintainable?
7. To what relief?
Additional issue framed on 5. 1980:-Whether the prior partition alleged is true?" It answered all the issues against the plaintiff and specifically found that the plaintiff in addition to the allotment of 3.41 acres of dry land and 2.75 acres of wet land, a sum of Rs. 10,000 was also given by way of family arrangement and a house was also purchased in his name. The trial court found that such an arrangement was not unfair and accordingly dismissed the suit with costs.
3. In the appeal, the leaned single Judge has scanned the entire evidence and has also recorded his finding in the following terms:-
"Apart from the evidence referred to above, the documentary evidence is not of much use in this case as admittedly there was no document evidencing the family arrangement pleaded by the defendants. Ex.B-63 is the settlement deed executed by the 4th defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 13. 1965. Under the document, an extent of 3.41 acres if drylands and 2.57 acres of wet lands were given to the plaintiff. Besides the lands, the plaintiff was also deed dated 110. 1962 under which the plaintiff purchased an extend of 44 cents of Nanja lands. On the date of Ex.B-1, the plaintiff was aged about 20 years. Admittedly, he did not have any source of income on that date.
His version that he purchased the property with the aid of funds given by his wife and his own savings cannot be true, because, his marriage took place only in 1964. It follows, therefore, that the purchase made in 1962 under Ex.D-1 was out of the family funds. According to the evidence of D.W.I, the property purchased under Ex.B-1 and the properties given under Ex.B-63 were given to the plaintiff for his share of all properties pooled together. It is now in evidence that the total extent of the suit properties comprising of the ancestral properties and the properties purchased by the first defendant comes to 9.91 acres of dry land and 4.92 1/2 acres of wet land besides three houses and three wells. The fourth defendant got from her father an extent of 4.76 acres of dry lands and 5.79 acres wet lands. If all the properties are pooled together, the total extent of dry lands comes to 14.67 acres and the total extent of wet land comes to
10. 72 acres. One-fourth share therein will come roughly to 3.56 3/4 acres of dry lands and 2.68 acres of wet lands. Considering the fact that the plaintiff has been given 3.41 acres of dry lands and 2.57 acres of wet lands besides a house, the case that there was a family arrangement in 1965 is probablised. Even though there is no satisfactory evidence to prove that there was a partition among all the membe
