The main legal point established in the judgment is that a family settlement can be upheld if found to be fair, and an unrevoked will relating to self-acquired property can defeat claims upon the estate.

Curgenven, J.

1. Of these two appeals from judgments of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput it will be sufficient to deal in extenso with A. S. No. 74 of 1922, as the decision in A. S. No. 45 of 1923 will follow from the findings reached in the former appeal.

2. The following table shows the family relationship of the person to whom this appeal relates:

THANIKACHALA

______________|___________________

| | |

1st wife=Thiyagaraja=2nd Appadural Raju

| wife Defen- |

| dent No.2-5 Kuppusami

_______|___________ |

| | |

Defendent Defendent |

No.-2 No.-2 |

_______________|_____________

| | |

Defendent Defendent Plantiff

No.-3 No.-4

3. Thanikachala was by profession--the family profession--a toddy contractor, and acquired a certain amount of property. He was thrice married, and by each wife had one son. In 1891 he made a will favouring his third wife (then alone surviving) and her son Raju at the expense of his two elder sons, Thyagaraja and Appadurai, who quarrelled with him and left home. Thanikachala died in 1896 or 1897, and on 17th February 1897 the three sons executed and registered a partition deed (Ex. A) which embraced not only Thanikachalas property but certain other items, which were the self-acquired property of the eldest son Thyagaraja. Besides the share which came to him under this deed, Thyagaraja subsequently acquired further property, and in 1910 made a will disposing of all that he at that date stood possessed of. At that time, although he was twice married he had only daughters. A son, the present plaintiff, was born in 1914. Thyagaraja himself died on 9th April 1917, leaving surviving his two daughters by his first wife (1st and 2nd defendants), his second wife (5th defendant) and two daughters (3rd and 4th defendants) and a son (plaintiff) by that wife. It is said that doubts soon arose among these persons as to the operative effect of the will, so that professional advice was taken and the result was that a settlement ( Ex. II) was entered into on 5th December 1917, under which the entire property was distributed among the various members of the family.

4. The plaintiff sued by his next friend to upset this settlement and to establish that the whole of Thyagarajas property was family property to which he is exclusively entitled as son, sole and undivided. The propositions which he sought to establish may be set out thus:

(1) The so-called family settlement is. not binding upon him, because he was not properly represented and it was not a fair settlement of a bona fide family dispute.

(2) It is, therefore, necessary to go behind this settlement, and to consider the effect of Thyagarajas will. That will is inoperative because: (a) it dealt with family property, and (b) it was revoked, either in law by the plaintiffs subsequent birth, or if not so, by Thyagaraja himself.

5. In any event, it is urged that the will does not operate upon property acquired after its execution.

6. It would be possible, without deciding whether the plaintiff, as his fathers son was entitled to all or some of the property, to support the settlement, on a finding that it was fair composition of a family dispute, conceived to avoid litigation. Such a course would involve an inquiry into the aspect which the several matters in dispute presented to the parties at the time the deed was executed. It is unnecessary, however, for us to resort to this method. We have examined the whole evidence in this case, and have reached the conclusion that, apart from the settlement, the plaintiffs claim to any except a very inconsiderable portion of the property must fail. That being so, the question whether the settlement makes adequate provision for him. cannot arise and it need scarcely be said that the plaintiff no longer presses for its cancellation. Whatever he gets under it will be more than he would have got had the parties gone to Court upon the will.

7. The question which first arises is whether the property of which Thyagaraja. died possessed was family property o