https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197644 The Supreme Court held that the transaction evidenced by Ex. 1 was a family arrangement conferring a half share in the disputed house to the appellant and his father. The Court rejected the Division Bench's conclusion that Ex. 1 was not a family arrangement, emphasizing the need for family harmony and settlement of potential disputes. Regarding adverse possession, the Court found interruptions in Baijnath's possession due to Nanhku's acts, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and restoring their half share in the house while ordering the respondents to pay costs. en-us Wed, 24 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:09:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197644 The Supreme Court held that the transaction evidenced by Ex. 1 was a family arrangement conferring a half share in the disputed house to the appellant and his father. The Court rejected the Division Bench's conclusion that Ex. 1 was not a family arrangement, emphasizing the need for family harmony and settlement of potential disputes. Regarding adverse possession, the Court found interruptions in Baijnath's possession due to Nanhku's acts, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and restoring their half share in the house while ordering the respondents to pay costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 24 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197644