Case: Maturi Pullaiah &amp; Another Vs. Maturi Narasimham &amp; Others

The following genealogy will be useful to appreciate the contentions of the parties:Peda Venkaiah, Venkateswar Rao, Pulliah the son of Venkatramaiah by his first wife, and Venkatramaiah dies in 1928, 1933, 1936 and 1952 respectively. Peda Venkiah had no ancestral property: all his properties were his. His eldest son, Venkatramaiah, was not an intelligent man, though he was good enough to look after the cultivation of the lands. His younger son, Narasimha, was an able man in whom the father had confidence and though, he was the younger son, he was helping his father in the management of the family affairs and indeed even during his fathers lifetime many properties were purchased in his name. After the death of the father, Narasimha was in charge of the management of theg business and the business at Eluru and was also looking after the Court affairs. During the course of his management large extent of properties were purchased in his name. After the death of Venkatramaiah in 1952, disputes arose between Narasimha and Venkatramaiahs son, Pullaiah, which led to the filing of O. S. No. 69 of 1952 by Pullaiah in the Court of the District Judge, Eluru, against Narasimha and his sons and others for partition of the joint family property by metes and bounds. He impleaded Narasimha and his sons as defendants 1 to 4 and his mother, as defendant 5. The other defendants were persons who had joint interest in some of the family properties3. The learned Subordinate Judge, on a consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, held that the properties standing in the name of the 1st respondent were also joint family properties and that ex., dated November 4, 1939, embodied a family arrangement effected between Venkatramaiah and Narasimha whereunder the 1st defendants branch would be entitled to 3 shares and the branch of Venkatramaiah would be entitled to 2 shares in all the joint family properties and that the said family arrangement was valid and binding on the plaintiff. In the result he gave a decree to the plaintiff fors of the joint family properties. It is not necessary to notice the other findings given by the learned Subordinate Judge, as nothing turns upon them in this appeal4. On appeal, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court confirmed the view of the learned Subordinate Judge both on the factum and the validity of the family arrangement. Hence the present appeal.

Court's reasoning:
These observations do not appear to contain the full statement of the law on the subject15. Relying upon this judgment it is contended that a competing title is a necessary condition for the validity of a familyarrangement.But it will be noticed that the widows, who had only a womans interest in the property, divided the property between themselves: they could not enlarge their interest in the estate. A widow could enter into a bona fide arrangement in regard to the estate only to preserve it against a conflicting claim against the estateThese observations show how strongly Courts lean in favour of a family arrangement that brings about harmony in the family. The decisions cited at the Bar are only illustrations of the passage quoted from Halsburys Laws of England in its application to the peculiar circumstances of our country17. Briefly stated, though conflict of legal claims in praesenti or in future is generally a condition for the validity of a family arrangement, it is not necessarily so.Even bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims will suffice. Members of a joint Hindu family may, to maintain peace or to bring about harmony in the family, enter into such a familyarrangement.If such an arrangement is entered into bona fide and the terms thereof are fair in the circumstances of a particular case, Courts will more readily give assent to such an arrangement than to avoid it19. It is, therefore, clear that Narasimha contributed to the prosperity of the family. Their father, who acquired the properties before his death, gave a direction that Narasimha should be given a larger share in the property. Narasimha, though a junior member of the family, on the promise given by the elder brother managed the properties sincerely and improved them. He was demanding partition and was asking his brother to give him a larger extent of property as directed by their father. There was also a possibility of Narasimha claiming the properties standing in his name as his own. The elder brother, Venkatramaiah, in the interests of harmony among the members of the family and for its benefit accepted the directions given by their father and on the advice of the mother agreed to give Narasimha three shares in the properties and to take 2 shares for himself therein. All the ingredients of a family arrangement as found in decided cases are satisfied in the present case. We, therefore, hold, agreeing with the lower Courts, that this was a family arrangement binding on the members of the familyIt is common case that this document did not bring about a division by metes and bounds between the parties. It did not also affect the interests of the parties in immovable properties in praesenti. What in effect it said was that the parties would continue to be members of the joint Hindu family and that Narasimha would manage the family properties as before, and that when they effected a partition in future Venkatramaiah would get 2 shares and Narasimha would get 3 shares in the properties then in existence or acquired thereafter. There was neither a division in status nor a division by metes and bounds in 1939.Its terms relating to shares would come into effect only in the future if and when division took place. If so understood, the document did not create any interest in immovable properties in praesenti in favour of the parties mentioned therein. If so, it follows that the document was not hit by S. 17 of the Indian Registration Act22. The principle underlying S. 17 of the Registration Act is well settled. The decisions cited at the Bar are only application of the said principle to the facts of each case. The decision of the Judicial Committee in (1911) 38 Ind App 104 (PC), relates to an instrument of 1884 which was intended to effect partition immediately and, therefore, it was held that it was void as regards immovable property. The decision in Rajangam Ayyar v. Rajangam Ayyar, 50 Ind App 134; (AIR 1922 PC 266), turned upon the terms of Ex. AY whereunder two brothers severed themselves in status and agreed to have a document executed for effectuating the partition. Dealing with the document, the Judicial Committee held that the document did not by itself create, assign, limit or extinguish any right or interest in immovable property but only created a right to obtain another document. The decision in Hari Sankar Paul v. Kedar Nath Saha, 66 Ind App 184: (AIR 1939 PC 167  ), was relied upon by analogy. There an agreement in writing which contained all the essentials of the transaction of a mortgage was held to be a document hit by S. 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act. It was held to be a document containing the bargain made between the parties and constituting a transfer of the property by way of mortgage and, therefore, it required registration. Further citation is unnecessary23. For the forgoing reasons, we hold that the document, Ex., does not require registration.