LexRANGANAYAKAMMA AND ANOTHER versus K.S. PRAKASH (D) BY L.RS. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
· [2008] 9 S.C.R. 297 RANGANAYAKAMMA AND ANOTHER A v. ~ K.S. PRAKASH (D) BY L.RS. AND OTHERS ' (Civil Appeal No. 3635 of 2008) MAY 16, 2008 8 [S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ] -( HtNDU LAW: Joint family properties - Partition of through family settle- ment - Sisters relinquishing their rights in properties in favour c of their brothers - Consent decree based on family settlement - HELD: A partition by meets and bounds may not always be possible - A family settlement is entered into for a larger pur- pose of achieving peace and harmony in the family - It is not ' .... a case where settlement was contrary to any statutory provi- D "" sion or was opposed to public policy - Court shall apply the statute to uphold a compromise unless it is otherwise vitiated in law - Contract Act, 1872 - s. 23. DEEDS AND DOCUMENTS." Deed of 'release' - Relinquishment of right in properly E by, sisters in favour of their brothers - HELD,· Release by an heir other than coparcener does not need any consideration - s. 25 of Contract Act must be read and construed having " regard to the fact situation obtaining in the case - Renuncia- tion in Indian context may be or may not be for consideration F - Contract Act, 1872 - s.2 (d) and 25 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - ss. 122 and 123. CONTRACT AcT, 1872: ss. 17 and 19 - 'Fraud' - Voidabi/ity of agreement - Suit G -I by sisters against their brothers and other sisters alleging fraud in obtaining consent decree in an earlier partition suit- HELD: When a fraud is alleged, particulars thereof are required to be 297 H 298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R. A pleaded - In the instant suit, no particulars of alleged fraud or misrepresentation have been disclosed - Besides, docu- ments on record show that partition consequent upon consent decree had been acted upon - Papers were signed either in office of advocate or before Sub-Registrar - Both the courts B below recorded a finding that the sisters had jointly taken a stand that they would not claim any share in properties - No case of fraud or misrepresentation has been made out - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 6, r.4. L1M1TATION Acr, 1963: c Schedule -Articles 59, 65 and 110 - Suit alleging fraud in obtaining deed of partition - Limitation - HELD: Applicabil- ity of Article 59 would depend upon the question as to whether deed of partition was required to be set aside or 'not - In the D instant case, it was required to be set aside - In view of Article 59, suit was barred by limitation. ~ The plaintiffs-appellants, two sisters, filed Suit No. 1760 of 1990 against their brothers defendants-respon- dents Nos.1 and 2 and other sisters for partition of the E suit properties on the ground that the same were self ac- quired properties of their father, 'KS'. It was also stated that the two brothers defendants-respondents no.1 and 2 acted fraudulently in getting the Power of Attorneys from them and obtaining a consent decree in earlier partition suit No. 2459 of 1982. The stand of the defendants-respon- ... F dents nos. 1 and 2 was that their father 'KS' alongwith other family members came to acquire the properties through a partition of joint family properties effected in the year 1957. 'KS' had two wives namely 'S' and 'V' and G in Partition Suit No. 2459 of 1982 the properties were fur- ther divided half and half between the two branches of 'KS' by a consent decree passed in terms of a compro- mise. Pursuant to the said compromise decree, a further deed of partition was executed on 5.8. 1983 (Ext. D-6) H amongst the children of 'KS' from 'S' in terms whereof 1/3 RANGANAYAKAMMAAND v. K.S. PRAKASH (D) 299 AND OTHERS . "" share in the property shown as Item No.3 was allotted to A their mother 'S' and rest of the properties were retained by the two brothers, defendants-respondents nos.1 and 2, in whose favour the sisters relinquished their right in the property out of love and affection. 'S' died on 10.9.1983. Defendants-respondents no. 1 and 2 pleaded that the suit B without prayer for cancellation of partition deed was not maintainable and was also barred by limitation. The trial ... court dismissed the suit. However, it held that the two plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 8 were entitled to 1/33 share each in Item No.2 of the suit properties. In the appeal the c plaintiffs filed an application under Or.6 r.17 read withs. 151 of the Code of Civil Proced
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.