A family arrangement settling a bona fide dispute can be valid and enforceable, and may operate as an assignment of debt under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Pandrang Row, J.

1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah dated 22nd February, 1932, in O.S. No. 198 of 1930 on his file. The suit was one instituted by the two plaintiffs to recover nearly Rs. 13,000 from defendants 1 to 4. The suit claim was based on a document dated 2nd February, 1926, Ex. A. That document was brought about as the result of an arrangement arrived at between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the fifth defendant on the other immediately after the death of the sister of the fifth defendant who had been married to the first plaintiff who was then a minor. In fact the case of the plaintiffs was that disputes arose about the properties that had been given to this lady Valliammai Achi at the time of her marriage between the first plaintiff and the fifth defendant, each claiming the money as his. This dispute arose before the corpse was removed from the house of the first plaintiff and a number of caste men and relations acted as panchayatdars and pronounced their opinion in accordance with which the document Ex. A was executed by the fifth defendant and the second plaintiff on behalf of the then minor first plaintiff and attested by the panchayatdars, one of whom was the first defendant with whose firm the moneys had been deposited. The first defendant did not contest the suit. The second defendant pleaded that he was not a necessary party to the suit. Defendants 3 and 4 put forward the claim of the fifth defendant to the moneys in question and the fifth defendant was the principal contesting defendant. His case was that, excepting a small portion, the moneys had been given by his family at the time of the marriage and that on the death of the girl without leaving any issue the same should revert to his family according to the custom among the Nattukottai Chetties. As regards Ex. A the fifth defendant completely denied that there was any arrangement as alleged or that he had signed Ex. A. The most important of the issues framed by the Court below were issues 1 to 3 and 7. The first three issues raised the question whether the arrangement relied upon in the plaint and Ex. A were true and whether the fifth defendant had consented to it and acquiesced in it. The 7th issue related to the question of limitation. All the important issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and the learned Subordinate Judge made a decree accordingly in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants 1 to 4.

2. In the present appeal by defendants 1, 3 and 5, the following points have been argued by their learned Advocate, (I) that Ex. A is not a binding contract or agreement as it is not supported by any consideration and (2) that the suit is barred by limitation. It is hardly possible to question the correctness of the finding of the Court below that Ex. A was actually executed by the fifth defendant after the panchayatdars had settled the terms thereof on the date which Ex. A bears. The fifth defendant who is the only witness examined on his side no doubt denied that he had agreed to any such arrangement or that he signed in Ex. A but there can be no doubt that his evidence on these points is completely false and so far as this part of his case is concerned there cannot be the least doubt that it is devoid of truth. The execution of Ex. A by the fifth defendant as well as by the second plaintiff is proved by three panchayatdars P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 one of whom, namely, P.W. 1 is a man of substance occupying a high rank in society being a Rao Bahadur, M.B.E. and an ex-Member of the Legislative Council. Their evidence has been accepted by the Court below and there can be no doubt that their evidence as regards the execution of Ex. A by the fifth defendant is true. In a subsequent document (the execution of which is admitted by the fifth defendant) Ex. C executed a few months afterwards there is a reference to an amount of Rs. 1,100 credited in the name of the fifth defendants son in the first def