Point of Law:
Courts would lean in favour of family settlement unless it is unfair, tainted by fraud or lacks bona fide

JUDGMENT :

1. Somewhat peculiar facts have given rise to filing of the present writ petition. The parties to dispute herein are three real sisters who have inherited agricultural land and Abadi from their mother. They initially agreed for the property to be settled in a manner such that each party got a fair share and also executed/signed a family settlement/compromise before the Tehsildar, which was acted upon and mutation was carried out in the revenue records in terms of the compromise. However, greed on part of one of the daughters, later, led to filing of an application for correction in the revenue records, notwithstanding the compromise, leading to filing of the present writ petition.

2. Late Patiraji Devi was the owner in possession of 5.344 hectares of agricultural land alongwith certain Abadi etc. situated in Mauja Saraeegarh & Aamdeeh, Pargana Vijaygarh, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra. She died on 1.11.2011 leaving behind three married daughters namely Smt. Vimla Devi, Smt. Nirmala Devi and Smt. Pramila Devi. During her lifetime she extended two registered deeds i.e. a will on 30.3.2011, bequeathing her agricultural estate amongst the three daughters such that a slightly larger share come to the youngest daughter Smt. Pramila Devi and remaining land getting equally divided in the two elder daughters. The second instrument is a registered gift executed 09 days prior to her death i.e. 21.10.2011, giving 1.9696 hectares of agricultural land exclusively to the eldest daughter Smt. Vimla Devi, the petitioner before this Court. Soon after her death a family settlement/compromise was acted upon amongst the three daughters and it was also reduced in writing and presented before the Tehsildar in mutation proceedings. As per the compromise/settlement the three sisters resolved their differences and were also put in possession over their respective share, as per the compromise. This compromise has been accepted by the competent authority and names of three sisters got mutated over the land left behind by Late Patiraji Devi in terms of the compromise. The compromise filed before the revenue authorities in mutation proceedings has not been challenged. However, Smt. Vimla Devi, the eldest daughter later moved an application for correction of records under Section 202 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, on the ground that mutation entry in the revenue record is contrary to the intent expressed by the testator in the two registered deeds and so the revenue records be corrected, accordingly. This application was allowed by the Naib Tehsildar. An appeal filed against it by the two younger sisters came to be allowed and the revision filed against it has also been dismissed thereby restoring the mutation entry in terms of the family settlement/compromise. Aggrieved by the orders passed in appeal/revision in proceedings under Section 202 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 the eldest sister Smt. Vimla Devi has filed this writ petition.

3. The execution of above-noted registered deeds by Smt. Patiraji Devi is not specifically challenged. The registered will is on record of writ proceedings as Annexure CA-1. At page 28 of the counter affidavit the testament provides for carving of three equal shares between the daughters with Smt. Pramila Devi, the youngest daughter getting an additional 0.253 hectares land over Plot No.2002.

4. It transpires that after the death of Smt. Patiraji Devi on 1.11.2011, the three daughters moved applications for mutating their names over the land left behind by their mother. The eldest daughter Smt. Vimla Devi apparently filed application claiming exclusive share over the property gifted to her on 21st October, 2011 and also claimed 1/3rd share as per will over the remaining agricultural property. The two younger sisters also applied for mutation as per the will. It is at this stage that good sense appears to have prevailed upon the sisters and instead of challenging the gift deed on the plaussible grounds that