Ramachandra Iyer, J.- This appeal is under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Judgment of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., in S.A. 1407 of 1949. That arose out of a suit filed by the appellants against the respondents for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. One Vappu Rowther was the owner of the properties. He died in 1936. He left behind him a daughter Savuravan Beevi through his pre-deceased first wife, his second wife, Zuleka Beevi and a son by her, the first respondent to the appeal. Zuleka Beevi died after the succession to the estate of Vappu Rowther opened. Savuravan Beevi died in 1944 leaving behind her her children the appellants as her heirs. The appellants claim that their mother was entitled to a share in the properties as an heir of Vappu Rowther, that on the death of their mother they were entitled to the same. The defence of the first respondent was that Savuravan Beevi even during the lifetime of Vappu Rowther had executed a release Exhibit B-6 on 13th January, 1936 relinquishing all her rights of inheritance in the properties of her father Vappu Rowther in consideration of a payment of Rs. 300. To secure that sum of Rs.300 and as part of the same transaction Vappu Rowther is said to have executed a simple bond, Exhibit B-12 on the same date in favour of his daughter, Savuravan Beevi promising to pay her with interest at four Kalams of paddy per cent. per annum. The first respondent, therefore, pleaded that by virtue of the release and the benefit she obtained under Exhibit B-12 the appellants’ mother had surrendered all her rights in the estate of her father and that she was also estopped from claiming a share. The first respondent further pleaded that he would be entitled to benefit under section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. Alternatively he claimed that in case the partition were to be granted, he should be compensated for improvements effected on the property, the debts of the estate which he discharged and the funeral expenses of Vappu Rowther incurred by him. The learned District Munsif negatived the contentions of the first respondent and held that the release was invalid and that the appellants would be entitled to a partition and separate possession of 7/24 share in the properties. He also held that interest paid under Exhibit B-6 worked out at slightly more than the legitimate share of income to which Savuravan Beevi would be entitled and directed the defendants to refund a sum of Rs 38-13-0 together with a sum of Rs. 50 which was received towards the principal of Exhibit B-12. The first respondent filed an appeal to the Sub-Court, Mayuram against the preliminary decree for partition granted against him by the learned District Munsif. The learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the District Munsif and held that Exhibit B-6 was not valid, that Savuravan Beevi and her sons were not estopped from claiming partition and that the first respondent would not be entitled to the benefit of section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. He further held that the appellants should pay their share of improvements effected and the debts discharged by the first respondent which the learned Judge assessed at Rs. 596-7-3. In the result the preliminary decree for partition was confirmed subject to the modification that the appellants should pay a sum of Rs. 685-5-0 to the first respondent. Against that decree the first respondent filed a second appeal to this Court. Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. who heard the appeal held that the release deed Exhibit B-6 was invalid and that the appellants would not be estopped from claiming partition by reason of section 115 of the Evidence Act. The learned Judge however, held that apart from the rule of estoppel provided for in section 115 of the Evidence Act there were other kinds of estoppel under which it could be held that a family arrangement was entered into by Savuravan Beevi with her father who was benefitted by it and therefore, binding on the parties conc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document