Partial restraint on alienation in a family arrangement was valid, defeating transfers made in breach of the compromise deed.

A family arrangement embodied in a compromise deed can validly impose a partial restraint on alienation, including a restriction against transfers to strangers while permitting intra-family transfers. Such a covenant was treated as consistent with justice, equity and good conscience, and alienations made in breach of it did not prevail against the respondent or confer title on the transferees. The text also notes that, after Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, partial restraints in inter vivos transfers were not regarded as void, and there was no sufficient basis to treat the arrangement as unlawful even before the Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the covenant in the compromise deed restraining alienation of the property outside the family was valid and legally enforceable, and whether the alienations made in breach of that restriction could prevail against the respondent.

Analysis: The compromise was a family arrangement settling rival claims to the property, not a unilateral conveyance. Even assuming that Sughra Bibi took an estate of inheritance, the instrument expressly imposed a partial restraint forbidding alienation to strangers while leaving intra-family transfers unrestricted. Such a restriction was not held repugnant under the applicable standard of justice, equity and good conscience. The court also noted that after Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, partial restraints on transfer in inter vivos transactions were not treated as void, and there was no sufficient basis to hold that the same arrangement was contrary to the governing law before the Act.

Conclusion: The restriction was valid and binding, the appellants acquired no title under the alienations, and the respondent was entitled to succeed to the claimed share.

---