RAM CHARAN DAS versus GIRJANANDINI DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 841 · Decided: 20-04-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

t 
A 
RAM CHARAN DAS 
v. 
GIRJANANDINI DEVI AND ORS. 
B 
April 20, 1965 
(A. K. SARKAR, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.J 
U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912 (Act 4 of 1912), s. 37(a)-Fami!y 
Settlement whether amounts to transfer or creation of interest in 
0 
property within the mraning of section. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Comprornise in suit-Doc.ument recording compromise 'Whether 
amounts to family settlement-Monies paid by one of the pa,-ties 
under the document-Other parties whether estopped from cha!leng· 
ing its validity-Party receiving benefit under document-Whether 
can challenge its validity. 
C's property passed under his will, drawn in 1883, to K and M 
who were brothers. M died and K entered into possession of his 
share also. On K's death in 1922 his mother entered into possession 
of the whole property. She gave over the management of the property 
to the Court of Wards under s. 10 of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912. 
The daughter of M however with the consent of K's mother got her 
father's share released from the management of the Court of Wards 
in her favour. In 1932 G, sister's son of K, filed a suit in which he 
challenged the release of M's share in favour of his daughter. Two 
other suits were filed in respect of the property by descendants of C's 
brother who as collaterals claimed to. be next reversioners to the pro-
perty. The plaintiff in onE: of these suits was the present appellant; 
in the other suit the plaintiff was his brother. In these suits a declara-
tion was sought that G and M's daughter had no rights in the pro-
perties in question. G, M's daughter. K's mother and the Court of 
Wards were made parties to these suits. Both these suits were com-
promised. The suit of the present appellant was compromised by a 
document Ex. Y-13, to which, among others, the appellant, G, and K's 
mother were parties. G had withdrawn his own suit shortly b€fore. 
Acting on the document Ex. Y-13 G paid monies to the Court of Wards 
to clear his liabilities and get released from its management the pro-
pertiesi in question. G, M's daughter, K's mother and the Court of 
promise. However, subsequently, the appellant filed a suit in which 
he challenged the validity of Ex. Y-13. Having failed in the trial court 
as well as in the High Court he appealed to this Court by special 
leave. 
The questions that fell for determination were: (1) whether Ex. 
Y-13 was binding !>fl the parties as a family arrangement or settle-
ment, (2) whether certain reservation in the said deed, leaving it open 
to the parties to challenge its recitals in certain contingencies had 
the effect that -the deed was not intended to be final, and (3) whether 
the family settlement fell within the miscl)ief of s. 37(a) of the U.P. 
Court of Wards Act. 
HELD: (i) The document Ex. Y-13 was in substance a family 
arrangement and therefore binding on all the parties to it. On the 
face of it, the document was a compromise of conflicting claims. The 
SH 
8l"l'H1';ME 
<'(ll"HT 
.HEl'l)ft'l'S 
[I !l(ifJj ;J ".c:.R. 
parties recognised each others' rights to property, which they had 
A 
earlier disputed. The suit filed by G was withdrawn shortly before 
f 
the document was executed and those filed by the appellant and his 
brother were compromised on the day of its execution. All these 
transactions were part of one main transaction which was the settle-
ment by members of the family of all their property disputes once 
and for all. Further, all those who could be said to be interested in 
the property were made perties to the transaction. [845H-846A] 
B 
In these circumstances, the appellant who had taken benefit under 
the transaction was not entitled to turn round and challenge its vali-
dity. He was also estopped from doing so because G, acting on the 
document had paid monies to the Court of Wards to get his property 
1 
released. [850G l 
Ramgouda Annagouda v. Bhausahe b, L. R. 54 I.A. 396, relied on. 
C 
(ii) Courts give effect to a family settlement upon the broad and 
general ground that its object is to settle existing or future disputes 
regarding property amongst members of a family. The word 'family' 
in this context is not to be given a narrow meaning. In Ramgouda 
Annagouda's cRse, of the three parties. to the settlement cf a di9pute 
concerning the property of a deceased person one was his widow, an-
D 
other her brother, and the third her son-in-law. The two latter were 
,-
not heirs of the deceased, yet be~ring in mind their re

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