LexKALE & OTHERS versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 202 KALE & OTHERS v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & ORS. January 21, 1976 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, R. S. SARKARIA ANDS. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.J Family arrangement-Its object and purpose-Principle governirrg-1/ should be registered-Oral arrangement-If permitted-If would operate as an estoppel. Ret:istration Act. s. 17(1)(b)-Family arrangement if should be compu[..; sorily reRistered. (A) The object of a family arrangement is to protect the family from long drawn litigation or perpetual strife which mars the unity and the solidarity of the. family. A family arrangement by which the property is equitably divided between the various contenders so as to achieve an equal distribution of wealth, instead of concentrating the same in the hands of a few, is a milestone in the ad- ministration of social justice. Where by consent of the parties a matter has been settled, the courts have leaned in favour of upholding such a fan1ily ar- rangement instead of disturbing it on technical or trival grounds. Where the courts find that the family arrangement suffers from a legal lacuna or a formal defect, the rule of estoppel is applied to shut out the plea of the person who. being a party to the family arrangement, seeks to unsettle a settled dispute and claims to revoke the family arrangement under which he has himself enjoyed some material benefits. [208 ·F-H: 209 A-Bl (B) (i) The family settlement must be bona fide so as to resolve family disputes; (ii) It must be voluntary and not induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence; (iii) It may be even oral, in which case no~· registration is necessary; (iv) Registration is necessary only if the terms are reduced to writing but where the memorandum has been prepared after the family arrangement either for the purpose of record or for information of court, the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable property and, therefore. does not fall within the mischief of s. 17(2) of the Registration Act and is not compul- sorily registrable; (v) The parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest, 'even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. But, even where a party has no title and the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then, the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld by the courts; (vi) Where bona fide disputes are settled by a bona fide family arrangement, such family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to settlement. f209 G-H; 210 A-El Lala Khunni Lal & Ors v. Kunwar Gobind Krishna Narain and Anr. _L.R. 38 I.A. 87. 102: Mt. Hiran Bibi and others v. Mt. Sohan Bibi, A.LR. 1914 P.C. 44; Sahu Madho Das and others v. Pand_it Mukand Ram and another [1955] 2 S.C.R. 22, 42-43; Ran1 Charan Das v. Girijanandini Devi & Ors. [19651 3 S.C.R. 841, 850-851; Tek Bohodur Bhujil v. Devi Singh Bhujil and others, A.l.R. 1966 S.C. 292, 295; Maturi Pullaiah and Anr. v. Maturi Narasimham and Ors. A.I.R. 1966 SC 1836; Krishna Biharilal v. Gulabchand and others. [1971] Supp. SCR 27, 34 and S. Shanmugam Pillai and others v. K. Shanmugam Pillai .and others. [1973] 2 S.C.C. 312, fOllowed. Ram Gopal v. T.ulshi Ram and another, A.l.R. 1928 All. 641 649; Sitalrt Baksh Singh and others v. Jang Bahadur Singh and others, A.I.R. 1933 Oudh 347, 348-349; M.st. Kalawati v. Sri Krishna Prasad and others, l.L.R. 19 Lucknow 57. 67: Bakhtawar v. Sunder Lal and others. A.LR. 1926 All. 173, 175; and Awadh Narain Sinf!h and others v. Narain Mishra and others, A.I.R. 1962: Patna 400, app:r_aved. • 1 • • • KALE V. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION 203 On the death of the father the family consisted of two unmarried daughters A (respondents 4 and 5) and appellant no. 1 (son of the married eldest daughter, appellant No. 2). After the marriage of respondents 4 and 5 the property left behind by the father was mutated in the name of appel- lant no. 1 who, under s. 36 of the U.P. Tenancy Act;, 1939, was the sole heir. Eventually, however, the parties arrived at a family settlement allotting khatas 5 and 90 to the appellant No. 1 and khatas 53 and 204 to respondents 4 and 5. This family arrangement was not registered. The revenue records were, how- ever, corrected. At the time of revision of records under the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.