Whether the Court can treat the partition of self-acquired property by a father as a family arrangement or gift to sons?

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. It is assumed that the title claimed by the person receiving the property under the arrangement had always resided in him or her so far as the property falling to his or her share is concerned and therefore no conveyance is necessary.

 But in our opinion, the principle can be carried further and so strongly do the Courts lean in favour of family arrangements that bring about harmony in a family and do justice to its various members and avoid, in anticipation, future disputes which might ruin them all, that we have no hesitation in taking the next step (fraud apart) and upholding an arrangement under which one set of members abandons all claim to all title and interest in all the properties in dispute and acknowledges that the sale and absolute title to all the properties resides in only one of their number (provided he or she had claimed the whole and made such assertion of title) and are content to take such properties as are assigned to their shares as gifts pure and simple from him or her, or as a conveyance for consideration when consideration is present.

In view of our finding that Narayana Pillai dealt with his self-acquired properties under Exhibit A-1, the other parties to the document had no antecedent title. It could not be pretended that there was any bona fide dispute between Narayana Pillai and his children and grandchildren when he divided and gave his properties to them under Exhibit A-1. In Ram Charan Das v. Girija Nandini Devi MANU/SC/0358/1965 : [1965]3SCR841 , relied on by Sri Vedantachari, it is pointed out that it is not necessary, as would appear from the decision in Rangasami Gounden v Nachiappa Gounden (1919) I.L.R. 42 Mad. 523 : L.R. 46 IndAp 72: 36 M.L.J. 493, that every party taking benefit under a family settlement must necessarily be shown to have, under the law, a claim to a share in the property and that all that is necessary is that the parties must be related to one another in some way and have a possible claim to the property or a claim or even a semblance of a claim on some other ground, as, say, affection. It is no doubt true that the children and grandchildren of Narayana Pillai had a claim to the affection of Narayana Pillai. But it could not on that ground be said that they had a claim or semblance of a claim against his self-acquired property. If the contention of Sri Vedantachari that even a semblance of a claim on some grounds such as affection is sufficient to support Exhibit A-1 as a family arrangement is accepted, it would lead to the result that every deed of gift by a father to his children or near relations could be treated as a family arrangement, though the other requisites of the family arrangement are absent. It is not possible to build an argument that Exhibit A-1 evidences a family arrangement solely on the stray observation in the above Supreme Court decision made in the course of a discussion whether a transaction which was a family settlement amounted to a transfer or creation of trust in the property. It is clear from the Supreme Court decision that the transaction in question in that case is a family arrangement entered into by the parties bona fide for the purpose of putting an end to the dispute among the family members. In the present case, neither the appellant nor the sixth respondent has stated that there were any disputes, or that any dispute was in contemplation which necessitated any family arrangement. In Jatru Pahan v. Ambikajit Prasad MANU/BH/0175/1957 : AIR 1957 Pat 570 , it has been held that the existence of a family dispute is not essential to the validity of a family arrangement, nor is the existence of a doubtful claim based on the allegation of an antecedent title essential for the validity of a family arrangement; such arrangement may bind the parties to it if it is for the benefit of the family, or for the maintenance of peace and harmony and the avoidance of future discord or for the preservation of the property, but there must be some kind of consideration before an agreement in respect to the division of family property can be held to be a valid family arrangement, though in such cases the Court will not scrutinize the quantum of consideration with meticulous nicety. Again in Gangabai v. Punau Rajwa A.I.R. 1956 Nag. 261, it was held that where a family arrangement was merely a cloak for the transfer it could not be upheld. In Natesan v. Commissioner of Income Tax I.L.R. (1964) 1 Mad. 502, it is pointed out that a separate property of a coparcener cannot be fragmented into shares and disposed of by allotment to sharers under the guise of partition without the element of transfer of property. Even if the document Exhibit A-1 is styled as a family arrangement, it is really a gift by Narayana Pillai to the several members of his family. It is true the parties to the document get rights under it. But it is not by virtue of any antecedent title or bona fide claim. For the foregoing reasons, we see no reason to differ from the finding of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge that, though Exhibit A-1 purports to be a partition deed, it is really a gift deed by Narayana Pillai in favour of the members of his family.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Decided On: 21.11.1969

 P.L.N. Paramasivam Vs.  P.K. Ramaswami Gounder and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Sadasivam, J.

Citations: (1970) 1 MLJ 592

Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page