GORIE GOURI NAIDU (MINOR) AND ANR. versus THANDROTHU BODEMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 118 · Decided: 09-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
GORIE GOURI NAIDU (MINOR) AND ANR. 
v. 
THANDROTHU BODEMMA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 9, 1997 
[G.N. RAY AD G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Code of Civil.Procedure, 1908 : Section 11-Res judicata-Eve11 if er-
roneous, an inter pmty judr,ry11c11t binds the pmty if the Co1ut of competent 
jwisdiction has decided the li.1~Jn an earlier decision Cowt declared that 
C deed of gifts were 11ot valid under Hindu Law--Held the said decision was 
binding 011 tire parties-Donees could not claim any title in re~pcct of the said 
propcit)~ft was not open to them to contend that in view of a Jamil)' settle-
ment the opposite pmty was estopped from challenging validity of the gift deed. 
Kale and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consideration & Ors., [1976) 3 
D sec 119, lield inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 242 of 
1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.86 of the Andhra Pradesh 
E High Court in L.P.A No. 134 of 1980. 
K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha Nair, Y. Subba Rao and C. 
Balasubramaniam for the Appellants. 
F 
R. Venugopal Reddy and B. Kanta Rao for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st March, 1986 
passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Letters 
G Patent Appeal No. 134 of 1980. The said Letters Patent Appeal arose out 
of the judgment dated 23rd April, 1979 in A.S. No. 29 of 1977. 
The appellants before this Court arc the heirs of the defendant No. 
4 in O.S. No. 10 of 1973 filed in the Court of the learned Single Judge 
Parvathi Puram by the respondent M. Thandrothu Bodemma. The said suit 
H was filed by the aforesaid plaintiff for partition and separate possession of 
118 
y 
) 
y 
G.G. NAIDU v. T.BODEMMA 
119 
her half share in the A and F Schedule of the plaintiff property alongwith A 
past and future profits. Such suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate 
Judge but the appeal preferred before the High Court being appeal No. 
514 of 1968 was allowed by the High Court and the plaintiff thereafter 
preferred appeal No. 29 of 1977 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 
Such appeal was also dismissed by the High Court inter alia holding that B 
parties to the fainily settlement were estopped from challenging the validity 
of such deed when being partitioned, they had derived benefits by the said 
family settlement. The plaintiff thereafter preferred an appeal before the 
Division Bench under Oause 15 of the Letters Patent. Such appeal has 
been allowed by the impugned judgment and the Division Bench has held 
that all the four deed of gifts which were executed by Gowramma were C 
declared void and it was not open for the donees under the said deeds to 
claim any title. The suit was therefore decreed by the Division Bench. 
Mr. Ram Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, 
has submitted that family settlement or arrangement between the parties D 
of the family and descendant from the near relation must be given proper 
sanctity and if the family arangements are not being vitiated by fraud, the 
said family arrangements must be enforced between the, parties to the 
family arrangements, in support of this contention he has relied on the 
decision of this Court made in Kale and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Con-
E 
solidation and Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 119. It has been held in the said decision 
that when the members of the. family or near relations .seek to sink their 
differences and disputes, settle and resolve their conflicting claims or 
disputed titles once for all in order to buy peace of mind of bring about 
complete harmony and goodwill in the family, the family arrangement 
is riot to be discarded on technical grounds. Family arrangements are 
governed by a special equity peculiar to themselves, and will be en-
forced, if honesty made, although they have not been meant as a com-
pr.omise, but have proceeded from an error of all parties, originating in 
mistake or ignorance of fact as to one what their rights actually depend. 
F 
It has also been indicated in the said judgment that object of the G 
arrangement is to protect the family from long-drawn litigation or 
perpetual strifes which man the unity and solidarity of the family and 
create hatred and bad blood between the various members of the family. 
The Court has held that so far as family arrangements are concerned, 
the courts lean in favour of family arrangements. Technical or trivial H 
120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 1 S.C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.