Family arrangement and partition rights: registration, fiduciary exception and proof of will determine property claims and probate.

A written family arrangement that effectively relinquishes rights in immovable property was treated as requiring registration and proper stamping; on the facts, it was not accepted as a valid family arrangement and the coercion and undue influence objections were upheld in substance. The court also held that the 'B' schedule property, and other estate-derived properties, remained liable to partition among the heirs, while the benami objection failed because the transaction fell within the fiduciary exception. A partition suit based on co-heirship and trust did not require prior cancellation of the sale deed. Limitation and the succession-law bar were rejected, and the will was accepted as duly proved, so probate was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the family arrangement dated 1.6.1994 was void and unenforceable for want of registration and stamping and for alleged coercion and undue influence; (ii) whether the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were liable to partition and whether the first defendant held the 'B' schedule property in trust; (iii) whether the claim to the 'A' schedule property was barred by the Benami law and whether the suit for partition required prior setting aside of the sale deed in respect of the 'B' schedule property; (iv) whether the 'C' schedule property formed part of the estate of the deceased and whether the 'D' schedule property was also liable to partition; (v) whether limitation and section 211 of the Indian Succession Act barred the suit; (vi) whether the will dated 19.4.2004 was duly proved and probate was to be granted.

Issue (i): Whether the family arrangement dated 1.6.1994 was void and unenforceable for want of registration and stamping and for alleged coercion and undue influence.

Analysis: The document was treated as one creating relinquishment of rights in immovable property and not as a mere record of prior oral arrangement. As it affected rights in property between family members, it required registration and proper stamping. The absence of the second plaintiff's signature and of attestation, together with the unconvincing explanation for non-production of the original, weakened the defendant's reliance on the document. On the evidence, the arrangement was held not to be a valid and acted upon family arrangement, and the issue of coercion and undue influence was accepted in substance.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the first defendant.

Issue (ii): Whether the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were liable to partition and whether the first defendant held the 'B' schedule property in trust.

Analysis: The 'B' schedule property was found to have belonged to the deceased and to have devolved on all three heirs. The later transfer in the first defendant's name, made on the basis of consent affidavits, did not extinguish the other heirs' rights, and the first defendant's claim to exclusive ownership was rejected. The 'A' schedule property was found to have been purchased from the funds of the first plaintiff and income from the 'B' schedule property. The 'D' schedule property, though settled by the first defendant in favour of the first plaintiff, was also treated as part of the family estate for partition purposes on the facts proved.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the first defendant.

Issue (iii): Whether the claim to the 'A' schedule property was barred by the Benami law and whether the suit for partition required prior setting aside of the sale deed in respect of the 'B' schedule property.

Analysis: The court held that the transaction concerning the 'A' schedule property fell within the fiduciary exception and, on the proved facts, was not hit by the benami prohibition. As to the 'B' schedule property, the suit was for partition on the footing of co-ownership and trust, not for cancellation of a title conferring instrument; therefore, setting aside the sale deed was unnecessary for maintaining the partition claim.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the first defendant.

Issue (iv): Whether the 'C' schedule property formed part of the estate of the deceased and whether the 'D' schedule property was also liable to partition.

Analysis: The 'C' schedule property was found to have been purchased out of the sale proceeds of the Besant Nagar property derived from the estate, and therefore it was not the exclusive property of the first plaintiff. The 'D' schedule property, though covered by a settlement deed in favour of the first plaintiff, was also treated as liable to partition because it was acquired from the estate-derived income and was included in the partition claim.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the first defendant.

Issue (v): Whether limitation and section 211 of the Indian Succession Act barred the suit.

Analysis: The limitation plea failed because the right to sue was treated as arising when the plaintiffs discovered the effect of the impugned arrangement, and the second plaintiff was not a signatory to that document. The bar under section 211 of the Indian Succession Act was rejected because the suit related to the estate of the intestate deceased ancestor and not to enforcement of rights under the testatrix's will; the second plaintiff sued in her own capacity as an heir.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the first defendant.

Issue (vi): Whether the will dated 19.4.2004 was duly proved and probate was to be granted.

Analysis: The attesting witness was examined and gave evidence sufficient to satisfy the legal requirement for proof of execution. The alleged suspicious circumstances, including non-registration and minor discrepancies, were held insufficient to dislodge the evidence of due execution and genuineness. The propounder discharged the burden of proof and the will was accepted as valid.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the executor and against the objector, and probate was granted.

Final Conclusion: The family arrangement was declared invalid, the properties were held liable to be partitioned in the manner found by the court, the benami objection and other procedural bars were rejected, and probate of the will dated 19.4.2004 was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A written family arrangement that operates as relinquishment of rights in immovable property is valid only if it satisfies the requirements of registration and proper stamping, while a partition claim based on co-heirship and trust does not require prior cancellation of a sale deed taken in another heir's name; a will is proved when attestation and execution satisfy the court notwithstanding minor discrepancies or non-registration.

---