Family partition agreements can bind minors when fair and beneficial, and may be enforceable as family compromises.

A family partition arrangement made by adult managing members of a joint Hindu family can bind a minor represented by his natural guardian if it is fair, just and beneficial to the minor. The deed here was treated as securing a direct benefit to the plaintiff by allotting property free from encumbrance or by providing monetary compensation in lieu of the allotted share, so he could enforce it even though he was not a direct party. The arrangement was also capable of being supported as a family compromise of doubtful rights under the Specific Relief Act. On that basis, the suit was maintainable and the agreement enforceable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff could enforce the family partition agreement and recover the amount lost on sale of the allotted village share, either as a binding family arrangement or as a compromise of doubtful rights under the Specific Relief Act.

Analysis: The agreement was treated as a partition arrangement made by the adult managing members of a joint Hindu family, with the plaintiff represented by his father and natural guardian. A partition fairly made and acted upon can bind minors if it is just and reasonable, and the corresponding benefit of enforcing the allotment cannot be denied to the minor beneficiary. The deed was also construed as intended to secure a direct benefit to the plaintiff, namely enjoyment of the allotted property free from encumbrance or monetary compensation in lieu thereof. On that footing, the plaintiff stood in a position akin to a cestui que trust and could maintain the suit notwithstanding that he was not a direct party to the instrument. In the alternative, the arrangement was capable of falling within the statutory protection given to a family compromise of doubtful rights.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable and the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the agreement.

---