1965 (4) TMI 116 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms family arrangement validity, plaintiff estopped from disputing, not a property transfer.

The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decree, affirmed by the High Court, and dismissed the appeal. The deed of partition was deemed a valid family ... - Issues Involved:1. Legal effect of the deed of partition dated March 31, 1933 (Ex. Y-13).2. Validity of the transaction considering the property was under the management of the Court of Wards.3. Whether the transaction was a family arrangement or a surrender.4. Estoppel and the binding nature of the family arrangement.5. Applicability of Section 37(a) of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912.Detailed Analysis:1. Legal Effect of the Deed of Partition (Ex. Y-13):The primary issue in this appeal is the legal effect of the deed of partition dated March 31, 1933 (Ex. Y-13). The plaintiff contended that the deed was invalid and did not affect his right to a share in the property in the suit. The courts below, including the trial court and the High Court, rejected this contention. The property in question belonged to Kanhaiyalal, who died without leaving a widow or issue, and was managed by the Court of Wards after his death. The deed was executed to settle disputes among family members, including the plaintiff, Gopinath, and Kadma Kuar.2. Validity of the Transaction Considering the Property was Under the Management of the Court of Wards:The subsidiary question is whether the validity of the transaction is affected by the fact that the property was under the management of the Court of Wards. The Court of Wards took over the management of the property under Section 10 of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912. The plaintiff argued that Kadma Kuar, being under the disability of the Court of Wards, could not enter into a valid transaction. However, the Court of Wards had examined and released half of the estate to Maheshwari Bibi upon agreement with Kadma Kuar, indicating the Court's involvement and approval of the transaction.3. Whether the Transaction was a Family Arrangement or a Surrender:The plaintiff argued that the compromise was neither a surrender nor a family arrangement and that Kadma Kuar was not entitled to make such a settlement. The contesting defendant argued that it was a family settlement, binding on the plaintiff, who had taken benefits under it. The court found that the document (Ex. Y-13) was, in substance, a family arrangement, binding on all parties. The document was intended to settle disputes among family members, and the plaintiff, having taken benefits under the arrangement, could not challenge its validity.4. Estoppel and the Binding Nature of the Family Arrangement:The court emphasized that the document was acted upon by the parties, with Gopinath paying off certain liabilities. The plaintiff, having benefited from the arrangement, was estopped from challenging its validity. The court cited the principle that family settlements aim to settle existing or future disputes regarding property among family members and are binding if acted upon. The court referred to the Privy Council decision in Ramgouda Annagouda v. Bhausaheb, which supported the binding nature of family arrangements.5. Applicability of Section 37(a) of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912:The final contention was based on Section 37(a) of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912, which restricts a ward from transferring or creating any interest in property under the Court's superintendence. The court held that the family settlement did not amount to a transfer or creation of an interest in property. The court referred to the Privy Council decision in Mst. Hiran Bibi v. Mst. Sohan Bibi, which held that a family settlement is not an alienation by a limited owner of family property. The court concluded that the transaction was a bona fide family settlement and not invalid under Section 37(a).Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the decree of the trial court, as affirmed by the High Court, and dismissed the appeal with costs throughout. The court found that the deed of partition was a valid family arrangement, binding on all parties, and not affected by the management of the Court of Wards. The plaintiff, having taken benefits under the arrangement, was estopped from challenging its validity. The transaction did not amount to a transfer or creation of an interest in property under Section 37(a) of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912.