A deed of settlement is a valid document if it is made for the purpose of distributing property among the settlor's family or those for whom he desires to provide, and it is not necessary that there should have been any dispute requiring settlement.

JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for partition was decreed partially in the Courts below. The properties in respect of which partition was sought are 9.32 acres in extent and admittedly were Somasthanam Paik Inam lands of mouza Chedipalli. One Arta Altia was previously the holder of the office and after he became old, his eldest son Bhaiga Altia became the village carpenter and held the Inam lands. These lands were resumed by Government in the year 1961 and on 24-7-61 a Patta in respect thereof was granted to Bhaiga Altia. The following genealogical table would explain the relationship between the parties in the suit. (See genealogical table below).

On 12-2-1963, Bhaiga executed a registered deed of "Nirupana Patro" Ext. D whereunder he settled 6.29 acres of land out of the disputed lands on his daughter-in-law Parvati (Deft, No. 2). Raghu the second son of Bhaiga thereafter instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal in which he contended inter alia that on 1-5-1961, Bhaiga and his three other brothers, Purna, Laxman and Rama executed a Muchilika in favour of Bhadralogs to effect a partition of the disputed lands into four equal shares, and accordingly partition was effected, but that thereafter defendants 1 and 2 prevailed upon Bhaiga and succeeded in getting the document dated 12-2-1963 (Ext. D) executed by him in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of the 6.69 acres of land. That document was described as a collusive one executed with a view to defraud the other branches of the family and is said to contain all false recitals therein. The suit was, therefore, instituted for a declaration that the Nirupana Patro dated 12-2-63 executed by Bhaiga in favour of defendant No. 2 is not valid and binding on the plaintiff, and for a partition of the suit properties into

"5 equal shares or 8 equal shares and put the plaintiff in possession of one such share."

Although the prayer is vague and uncertain from the fact that the plaintiff had valued the suit at Rs. 1100/- which is said to be the market value of his one-fifth share therein, it is clear that what the plaintiff prayed for was to partition the properties into five equal shares and allot to him one such share. Such a prayer could be made only on the basis that the disputed properties belong to Bhaiga exclusively and as the latter died in 1961 or 1962, the plaintiff would be entitled only to a one fifth share in the properties left by Bhaiga.

2. Defendants 9 to 12 did not contest the suit. Defendants 2 to 8 who represent the branches of the three other sons of Arta contended that although after Arta, his son Bhaiga was appointed as the Samasthanam Paik, Bhagia and his three other brother were jointly working as Samasthana Paik and were jointly in possession of the Inam lands, that on 1-5-1961 all the four brothers executed a Muchilika in favour of Bhadralogs to partition the suit properties into four equal shares and accordingly a division was effected and consequently the disputed deed of Nirupana Patro which is executed in respect of a major portion of the disputed properties is liable to be set aside, and that these defendants would have "no objection" if a three-fourth share in the disputed lands is allotted to their share.

3. The case of the defendants 1 and 2 is that after the resumption of the Inam lands and the grant of a Zeoroyiti Patta in respect thereof of Bhaiga, the latter became the sole owner of the properties and had full disposing power in respect thereof. On 12-2-1963, he executed a deed of settlement Ext. D in respect of 6.29 acres out of the disputed lands in favour of defendant No. 2 with full knowledge of its contents and the document is a valid one and is not liable to be challenged by the defendants. The alleged Muchilika dated 1-5-1961 said to have been executed by Bhaiga and his brothers in favour of Bhadralogs is attacked as a forged document and it is contended that the Bhadralogs never passed an award nor was it ever filed