Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. The Apex Court in Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation , has held that the family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary, that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing, that a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation and that in such a case, the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable. It has also been held in the said decision that the members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement, that even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement Will be upheld and the courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same.

(5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has to title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same;
(6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement.

In the above decision, the Apex Court has also relied on the decision in Sahu Madho Das v. Mukand Ram (1955)2 S.C.R. 22, 42-43 : A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 481, 490, 491, wherein it was held as follows:

It is well-settled that a compromise or family arrangement is based on the assumption that there is an antecedent title of some sort in the parties and the agreement acknowledges and defines what that title is, each party relinquishing all claims to property other than that falling to his share and recognising the right of the others, as they, had previously asserted it, to the portions allotted to them respectively. That explains why no conveyance is required in these cases to pass the title from the one in whom it resides to the person receiving it under the family arrangement.
The portions extracted in the decision referred to above would disclose that family arrangements can be made by a special equity peculiar to themselves but with bona fide intention: There can be no distinction in entering into such family arrangements by families having different faiths. Once a family arrangement is made with a bona fide intention to resolve family disputes and rival claims between the parties to that family arrangement with regard to the properties involved therein, it has to be given effect to without any murmur from any side irrespective of caste, creed or religion. The parties to such family arrangement, who are admitted to have relinquished their antecedent title of some sort in the properties in favour Of the other parties, have to recognise the rights of others with regard to the properties allotted to their shares in the family arrangement. It is, therefore, well settled that execution of any conveyance deed is not required with regard to allotment of properties under the family arrangement.