Written family settlement acted upon and payments governed partition; suit dismissed for items 1-2, adjusted shares to one-fifth each

SC held that a written family settlement (Ex.D22), acted upon by the parties and supported by subsequent conduct and relinquishment payments, governed partition. The HC judgment is set aside insofar as suit items No.1 and No.2, and the plaintiffs' suit for those items is dismissed. The court modified the decree for item No.3, holding that the four respondents/plaintiffs and the appellant/defendant are each entitled to a 1/5 share. The defendant failed to prove independent means for payment relating to grant of land.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Partition of joint family property (Items No.1 and 2).
2. Claim of self-acquired property by the appellant (Item No.3).
3. Validity of relinquishment of rights by plaintiffs No.3 and 4.
4. Entitlement of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 to share in Item No.3.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Partition of Joint Family Property (Items No.1 and 2):
The respondents-plaintiffs argued that items No.1 and 2 were joint family properties managed by the appellant-defendant after their father's death. The trial court and High Court both held that plaintiffs No.3 and 4 were entitled to 1/3rd share each in items No.1 and 2, rejecting the appellant's claim that plaintiffs No.3 and 4 had relinquished their rights through a panchayat resolution and receipts (Exs. D14 and D23). The Supreme Court, however, found that the lower courts failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence, including the panchayat resolution (Ex.D22), which indicated a family settlement where plaintiffs No.3 and 4 had received money in lieu of their shares. The Court held that the relinquishment was valid and set aside the High Court's judgment regarding items No.1 and 2, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for partition of these items.

2. Claim of Self-Acquired Property by the Appellant (Item No.3):
The appellant claimed that item No.3 was his self-acquired property, as he had encroached and developed it independently. The trial court and High Court rejected this claim, noting that the patta was granted to the appellant after the suit was filed and that he failed to prove the source of income for the T.T. fine payment. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding, concluding that item No.3 was developed by the joint family and the patta granted to the appellant was for the benefit of the entire family.

3. Validity of Relinquishment of Rights by Plaintiffs No.3 and 4:
The appellant contended that plaintiffs No.3 and 4 had relinquished their rights to items No.1 and 2 through a panchayat resolution and receipts. The trial court and High Court held that without a registered conveyance deed, such relinquishment could not be established. The Supreme Court, however, recognized the panchayat resolution (Ex.D22) as a valid family arrangement and considered the subsequent conduct of the parties, which indicated that the resolution was acted upon. The Court concluded that the relinquishment was valid, reversing the lower courts' findings.

4. Entitlement of Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 to Share in Item No.3:
Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 had stated during the trial that they had no claim to items No.1 and 2 but did not explicitly relinquish their rights to item No.3. The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 were entitled to a share in item No.3, as the patta was granted for the benefit of the family. However, the Court noted that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 could choose to relinquish their shares in favor of other parties during the final decree proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment regarding items No.1 and 2 and dismissing the suit for partition of these items. The Court modified the judgment concerning item No.3, holding that all parties (plaintiffs and defendant) were entitled to 1/5th share each. No order as to costs was made.

---