Family settlement and family property principles determined relinquishment of rights in two items and equal shares in the third.

A family settlement evidenced by a written panchayat resolution, receipts and consistent conduct was treated as valid proof that plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 relinquished their rights in suit schedule items No. 1 and 2, even though no registered conveyance was executed; the settlement was acted upon, so partition of those items was denied. For suit schedule item No. 3, the evidence of continued family cultivation and possession showed that a later patta in the defendant's name did not establish exclusive self-acquisition; the property was treated as held for the family, and all five co-sharers were entitled to equal shares.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 had relinquished their rights in suit schedule items No. 1 and 2 by the panchayat resolution and connected receipts without a registered conveyance; (ii) whether suit schedule item No. 3 was the self-acquired property of the defendant or property held for the benefit of the family, entitling all brothers to a share.

Issue (i): whether plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 had relinquished their rights in suit schedule items No. 1 and 2 by the panchayat resolution and connected receipts without a registered conveyance.

Analysis: The written panchayat resolution recorded that the parties had settled their rights and that money had been paid in lieu of the shares of plaintiffs No. 3 and 4. The receipts and oral evidence were consistent with the settlement and subsequent conduct of the parties. A family arrangement may be oral, and even when reduced to writing it can operate as evidence of the settlement, though a document creating or extinguishing rights in immovable property ordinarily attracts registration requirements. On the facts, the settlement was acted upon and the evidence supported relinquishment of the rights of plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 in items No. 1 and 2.

Conclusion: The finding of the courts below on items No. 1 and 2 was set aside, and the suit for partition of those items was dismissed; the issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether suit schedule item No. 3 was the self-acquired property of the defendant or property held for the benefit of the family, entitling all brothers to a share.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the land had remained under family cultivation and possession during the lifetime of the father and thereafter. The patta was granted only after the suit and on an application made during the period when there had been no clear severance of status. The grant of patta, therefore, did not establish exclusive self-acquisition by the defendant and was treated as having been obtained for the benefit of the family.

Conclusion: Item No. 3 was held to be available to all the brothers in equal shares, with each of the four plaintiffs and the defendant entitled to one-fifth share; the issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part by overturning the decree of partition in respect of items No. 1 and 2, while maintaining a shared entitlement in item No. 3 among all five co-sharers.

Ratio Decidendi: A family settlement evidenced by a written panchayat resolution and acted upon by the parties can be relied upon to recognize relinquishment of rights, and a revenue patta granted in favour of one family member does not by itself establish exclusive ownership where the property was held for the benefit of the family.

---