TMI Blog1966 (3) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abled man in whom the father had confidence and though, he was the younger son, he was helping his father in the management of the family affairs and indeed even during his father's lifetime many properties were purchased in his name. After the death of the father, Narasimha was in charge of the management of the money-lending business and the business at Eluru and was also looking after the Court affairs. During the course of his management large extent of properties were purchased in his name. After the death of Venkatramaiah in 1952, disputes arose between Narasimha and Venkatramaiah's son, Pullaiah, which led to the filing of O. S. No. 69 of 1952 by Pullaiah in the Court of the District Judge, Eluru, against Narasimha and his sons and others for partition of the joint family property by metes and bounds. He impleaded Narasimha and his sons as defendants 1 to 4 and his mother, as defendant 5. The other defendants were persons who had joint interest in some of the family properties. 2. The suit came up before the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, and it was renumbered as O. S. No. 86 of 1954. Defendants 1 to 4 mainly contested the suit on the ground that under the family arran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen he fell ill, he insisted upon a ?? and for giving him his extra ?? Venkatramaiah again requested him as to disrupt the family but to continue ?? management as before on the promise that when the partition was effected his branch would take only 2 shares and the 1st defendant's branch would take 3 shares of the joint family properties, how there-after he continued to manage the properties as he was doing before and improved them, how in 1931 Venkatramaiah asked him to be joint at least for 6 more years and to have the aforesaid shares in the properties when they entered into a partition thereafter and how in 1939 the said arrangement to divide the properties in the said shares was embodied in a document. After the said recitals, in paragraph 9, he proceeded to state: It is also on the basis of this agreement, which is also a family arrangement that the 1st defendant continued to work as before and improved the family property. But for this family arrangement, he would have got the family properties divided long ago and would have claimed the property acquired by him in his own name as his self-acquisition. It is because of this family arrangement and agreement that the 1s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alid as a family arrangement. Before we advert to the circumstances under which the arrangement embodied in Ex. B-1 came to be brought about, we shall briefly notice the law of the family arrangements. 9. A brief summary of the nature of family arrangements and the conditions for their validity is found in Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 17 at pp. 215-216: A family arrangement is an agreement between members of the same family, intended to be generally and reasonably for the benefit of the family either by compromising doubtful or disputed rights or by preserving the family property or the peace and security of the family by avoiding litigation or by saving its honour. The agreement may be implied from a long course of dealing, but it is more usual to embody or to effectuate the agreement in a deed to which the term 'family arrangement' is applied. The principles the Courts should bear in mind in appreciating the scope of such family arrangement are stated thus: Family arrangements are governed by principles which are not applicable to dealings between strangers. The Court, when deciding the rights of parties under family arrangements or claims ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd a sufficient ground to sustain it. 12. In Basantakumar Basu v. Ramshankar Ray a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, after considering the relevant decisions, observed: On reading these decisions with care, it seems to us that, if there is one principle that follows from all of them unmistakably, it is this that the arrangement must be one concluded with the object of setting bona fide a dispute arising out of conflicting claims to property, which was either existing at the time or was likely to arise in future. Bona fides is the essence of its validity, and from this it follows that there must be either a dispute or at least an apprehension of a dispute, a situation or context, which is avoided by a policy of giving and taking; or else, all transfers or surrenders will pass under the cloak of a family arrangement. These observations do not appear to contain the full statement of the law on the subject. 13. In Thakur Umrao Singh v. Thakur Lachman Singh (1911) 38 Ind App 104 (PC), the facts were: One Kalka Bakhsh Singh had three sons. One of the sons died before the father leaving 2 sons. In 1884, after some quarrels, Kalka Bakhsh Singh executed a document throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property, divided the property between themselves: they could not enlarge their interest in the estate. A widow could enter into a bona fide arrangement in regard to the estate only to preserve it against a conflicting claim against the estate. 16. This Court in Sahu Madho Das v. Mukand Ram . defined the scope of a family arrangement and its ingredients. That appeal arose out of a suit filed by a reversioner for the recovery of the properties alienated from persons claiming under the widow, after the succession opened. The defendants relied upon an arrangement between the widow and her daughter's grandsons whereunder the widow gave certain properties to them absolutely. In dealing with the question whether such an arrangement would amount to a valid family arrangement, Bose, J., speaking for the Court, observed: It is well settled that a compromise or family arrangement is based on the assumption that there is an antecedent title of some sort in the parties and the agreement acknowledges and defines what that title is, each party relinquishing all claims to property other than that falling to his share and recognising the right of the others, as they had previously assert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eda Venkaiah and, therefore, were his self-acquisitions, Narasimha was an able man, were as Venkatramaiah was just an ordinary unsophisticated agriculturist. Narasimha was helping his father during the latter's lifetime. The father, therefore, told the brothers that a larger share should be given to Narasimha, the extent of the share to be settled by their mother. After the death of the father, though Venkatramaiah was the de jure manager, the entire management of the estate was entrusted to Narasimha on a promise that his father's word would be respected. After the father's death, Narasimha was not only managing the properties, but also was in management of the moneylending business and the business at Eluru. A large protion of the family properties stood in the name of Narasimha. In 1931 Narasimha wanted to separate himself from the family and asked Venkatramaiah to specify the properties that could be given to him; but Venkatramaiah requested Narasimha to continue to live as before and represented that he would be given three-fifths share in the properties at the time of partition. Subsequently, when Narasimha again insisted upon getting away from the joint family, V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Courts held that Ex.B-1 did not require registration. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that though in law Narasimha was entitled only to 1/2 share, the document enlarged his share to 2/5 and, therefore, it clearly affected immovable property and hence it created a larger interest in the immovable property in favour of Narasimha within the meaning of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. 21. The operative part of Ex. B-1 reads thus: Therefore out of our family property, i.e., property which belongs to us at present and the property which we may acquire in future, the 1st party of us and his representatives shall take two shares while the 2nd party of us and his representatives shall take three shares. We both parties, having agreed that whenever any one of us or any one of our representatives desires at any time that the family properties should be partitioned according to the above mentioned shares and that till such time our family shall continue to be joint subject to the terms stipulated herein entered into this agreement. It is common case that this document did not bring about a division by metes and bounds between the parties. It did not also affe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
