JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This appeal is by Defendant-1 directed against the decision of Sri L.N. Samant, Additional Subordinate Judge of Berhampur reversing a decision of the Munsif of Berhampur dated 17-1-1959. The facts of the case are follows: 2. Bhima Sahu Defendant-2 is the brother of Arjun the natural father of Defendant-1 Narayana Defendant was staying from his childhood with Bhima and, claimed to be his adopt son. Bhima first married China who though he lived for a considerable long time did not beget any child. Thereafter he married a second wife who he ultimately divorced. He married for a third time Sita whose sons are Plaintiffs 1 and 2. On 19-4-1950 Bhima executed and registered a deed of gift (Ext. 1) in favour of Defendant- conveying thereby about six Bharanams of Agricultural lands and the residential house which is the subject matter of the dispute He, however, on 8-7-1950 cancelled the said deed of gift under pressure of his third wife Sita, though Defendant-1 has already possessed the lands on the strength of the gift deed. On 13-12-1962 the present suit was filed by Babu and Raghunath Sahu two minor sons of Bhima Sahu aged about five and one and half years respectively through their mother guardian Sita for recovery of possession of the suit lands after evicting Defendant-1 therefrom. Plaintiffs case is that this gift deed Ext.1 was executed by Defendant-2 under the evil influence of Defendant 1 and though the document has been cancelled by Defendant 2, Defendant 1 still continned to possess the property as a trespasser and as such was liable to be evicted. 3. Defendant-2 did not file any written statement but figured as P.W. 1 and supported the case of the Plaintiffs and admitted that he brought the suit in the name of his minor sons spending the expenses of litigation. 4. Defendant-1 contested the suit on the ground that he was brought in adoption by Defendant-2 during the lifetime of his first wife and is entitled to a share in the property. Long after this adoption, Defendant-2 married the Plaintiff's mother in 1948. Thereafter quarrel ensued between him and his stepmother as the latter did not want Defendant-1 to live jointly with them. At the intervention of respectable people, Defendant-2 settled the suit property with him by the deed of gift, Ext. Long after this adoption, Defendant-2 married the Plaintiff's mother in 1948. Thereafter quarrel ensued between him and his stepmother as the latter did not want Defendant-1 to live jointly with them. At the intervention of respectable people, Defendant-2 settled the suit property with him by the deed of gift, Ext. 1, and though the document is named as a deed of gift, it is practically a deed of settlement. After execution of Ext. 1 he has been in possession of the suit-property, though under the undue influence of Sita Defendant-2, he subsequently cancelled it. 5. The learned trial court held that Defendant-1 was the adopted son of Defendant-2 and Ext. 1 was executed not under undue influence of Defendant-1 but it is a bonafide family arrangement made to maintain peace in the family and to avoid all future disputes. He also held that the Plaintiffs had no right, title or interest over the suit property, and he thus dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit in full. 6. The Appellate Court however, held that the adoption of Defendant-1 had not been proved, and Defendant-2 had no right to make a gift of his ancestral property in the presence of his two sons, the Plaintiffs, and assuming Ext. 1 to be a bonafide family settlement, since the property covered under Ex. I represent more than 15th of the entire estate to which Defendant-I is entitled in law, the said document cannot be taken to represent a valid transaction. He, therefore, allowed the Plaintiffs claim in full. It is against this decision that the present appeal has been filed by Defendant-1. 7. Mr. H.G. Panda, learned Counsel for the Appellate, contended that assuming Defendant-1 has failed to prove the adoption by any cogent oral evidence of giving and taking, there are yet quite a number of documents to show that n fact he was admitted to be the adopted son of Defendant-2. In any case, the conduct of the parties and the reputation of Defendant-1 as the adopted son of Defendant-2 fully established the factum of adoption. In any case, the conduct of the parties and the reputation of Defendant-1 as the adopted son of Defendant-2 fully established the factum of adoption. His further contention was that even if the factum of adoption is not proved, there are enough materials on record to show that there was necessity for a family settlement as the claim of Defendant-1 as an adopted son cannot be completely thrown out as wholly unfounded, and the deed of gift is nothing but a deed of family settlement. It is well-settled in law that even a doubtful claim can be taken as the basis for a family settlement, provided the claim is bonafide and is not made by an imposter. Mr. Panda relied upon the following circumstances to show that the claim of Defendant-1 as adopted son of Defendant-2 is a bonafide one (i) His admitted residence with Bhima from his childhood till 19-1950 the date of execution of Ex. 1: (2) Bhima gave Narayan in marriage; (3) The voters list Ex. "E" allows that he (Narayan) was recorded as the son of Bhima ; (4) D.W. 4 the school teacher has proved the Narayan was recorded as the son of Bhima in the school register which appear to have been destroyed on account of the collapse of the school house during some heavy rains; and (5) The recital in Ext. I itself shows that Narayan was depending upon Bhima for his residence and maintence; as otherwise he would have resided with his natural father Arjun who lives separately from Bhima. These circumstances are relied upon to make out a bonafide case of adoption of Narayan by Bhima; and on the basis of these circumstances, it is contended that even if Defendant-1 failed to prove categorically the ceremony of giving and taking in support of his adoption, yet the fact remains that his claim cannot be said to be absolutely unfounded, as these circumstances are borne out by the record. 8. It may be noted in this connection that P.W. 1 Bhima himself had stated in hi examination in chief that he executed a deed of settlement in favour of Defendant but according to him it was executed as Defendant. I promised to maintain him, but as instead of maintaining him, he turned him out of the house, he cancelled Ext. 1 by another deed, Ex. 2. On a perusal of Ext. I promised to maintain him, but as instead of maintaining him, he turned him out of the house, he cancelled Ext. 1 by another deed, Ex. 2. On a perusal of Ext. 1 it would appeal that there is no recital that the document was executed on the promise of Defendant to maintain Defendant. On the other hand it recites: You are dependent upon me. So for your residence and maintenance. I am giving you the property conveyed in this document. So on the very admission of Bhima himself this was a sort of a family settlement and not a deed of gift as contended by the Plaintiffs. The fact that Defendant-1 was living from his childhood with Defendant-2 cannot be disputed in view of the evidence adduced on this behalf by the Plaintiffs themselves. P.W. 4 Sita, the wife of Bhima, also admitted that Narayan is living in a back portion of their residential house. Thus, it cannot be disputed that Defendant-1 was continuing to reside with Bhima from his very childhood until the execution of Ext. 1, and nothing has been brought out from the evidence of the, school teacher who is an old man of 53 so as to discredit his evidence that Bhima was recorded as the father of Narayan in the School register. He stated that Narayan was admitted to school about 25 years ago and he had also reported about the destruction of the school register to the Government. The entry in the voters list is also not challellged as incorrect by Defendant-2. Thus, the oral evidence coupled with the documents clearly proves at Narayan was staying in the house of Defendant-2 from his childhood and was being treated as a son, and therefore had title to the suit-property on the basis of his claim as such. That claim itself may be a good ground, however, doubtful the factum of adoption may be for arriving at a family settlement for maintenance of future family peace. 9. The fact that the family settlement has been acted upon cannot be doubted in view of the fact that Defendant is still in possession of the property which is sought to be recovered from him by the present suit. P.W. 1 Bhima wanted to evict. Defendant from the suit lands after execution of Ex. 1 as would appear from Ex. B a Muchlika. P.W. 1 Bhima wanted to evict. Defendant from the suit lands after execution of Ex. 1 as would appear from Ex. B a Muchlika. He admits in his cross-examination: "I know Subudhi Behera. He executed this Muchalika (Ex. B) in my favour for the purpose of evicting Defendant-1 from the lands conveyed to him by Ex. 1. This is my signature at the back of Ext.1 marked Ext. B/1" From Ext. C series it appears that Defendant-1 Narayan was paying the cist in respect of the suit property after the execution of Ext. 1, from 1951 on wards. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that Ext. 1 had been acted upon by the parties. 10. learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon a decision reported in Nimai Charan Sahu v. Maguni Dei and Ors. ILR 1959 Cutt 602, where relying upon several previous decisions of different High Courts in India including some decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Sahu Madho Das and Others Vs. Mukand Ram and Another, and Ponnammal v. R. Srinivasa Rangan AIR 1956 S.C. 162 their Lordships held: A family arrangement made in settlement of a disputed or doubtful claim is valid and binding on the minor members of the family also in the absence of proof of fraud, collusion etc. The validity of a family arrangement regarding disputed rights depends on the facts existing at the time of the transaction and will not be affected by subsequent judicial determination showing the rights of parties to be different from what was supposed or that one party had nothing to give up. In the case reported in Sahu Madho Das and Others Vs. Mukand Ram and Another their Lordships held that a family arrangement can as a matter of law, be implied from a long course of dealings between the parties. In the case reported in Sahu Madho Das and Others Vs. Mukand Ram and Another their Lordships held that a family arrangement can as a matter of law, be implied from a long course of dealings between the parties. Their Lordships while dealing with a case of family arrangement further held: But the Principle can be carried further and so strongly do the Courts lean in favour of family arrangements that being about harmony in a family and justice to its various members and avoid, in anticipation future disputes which might ruin them all that they have no hesitation in taking the next step (fraud apart) and upholding an arrangement under which one set members abandons all claim to, all title and interest in all the properties in dispute and acknowledges that the sole 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 an 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. (The italics are mine). In view of the aforesaid position of law, it is no longer open to dispute that a family arrangement could be arrived at even by a deed of gift. In the present case it cannot be disputed that Narayan claimed to be the adopted son of Bhima and was living as a son from his childhood in his house. The oral and documentary evidence in this case supports such a claim. Though the adoption itself may not be strictly legally proved and may not be sufficient to stand the test of the Court of law the fact remains that Narayan had such a claim to the property of Defendant-2, however, doubtful that claim may be. Therefore applying these principles of law, there cannot be any doubt that Ex. 1 was a bonafide family settlement. 11. The learned Appellate Court, however, was reluctant to treat the document as such since it conveyed more property favour of Narayan than which he would have ordinarily got as his share according to law. That is always not a true test to decide whether a family arrangement is valid or not as would appear from the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court. That is always not a true test to decide whether a family arrangement is valid or not as would appear from the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court. The mere inequality in the distribution of shares to different members of the family is not by itself a valid ground to set aside the deed of settlement. 12. learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that Bhima had no right to give away the ancestral property in the presence of the Plaintiffs. That contention cannot have any force in view of the fact that Bhima himself had admitted that Ex. 1 is a deed of settlement though he wanted to cancel the same on grounds not borne out by Ex. 1, itself. It was contended that in any case, the Plaintiffs being after-born sons, even if Narayan's adoption in valid, he could not have got more than 1/5th share of the whole ancestral property. In this connection it is necessary to not that the age of Plaintiff-1 is given as 11/2 years in the plaint itself which was filed on 13-12-52. Therefore Plaintiff-2 was not born on 19-4-50, the date of execution of Ext. 1, and Plaintiff-1 was the only person in existence, on that date. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 1 himself that he had 15 or 16 Bharanams of land at the date of execution of Ex. 1. It is not clear whether this is exclusive of the suit property. Even assuming that out of 15 or 16 Bharanams of ancestral lands and three houses, Bhima gave away 6 Bharanams of land and one house to Narayan, it works out roughly to 1/3rd of the ancestral property. It cannot be disputed that the father has the right to effect a partition amongst his sons, omit and of add provided and, the distribution is not grossly disproportionate. Moreover no fraud is proved to have been committed by Defendant-1 in getting this deed of settlement executed by Bhima who is fairly an old man and could not have been duped by Defendant-1, particularly when he was already under the influence of his third wife Sita and Plaintiff-1 was already born. Obviously, therefore, he wanted to purchase family peace by making Some sort of a family settlement in favour of Narayan so that after him there should be nothing left for litigation between Narayan and the sons of Defendant 2. Obviously, therefore, he wanted to purchase family peace by making Some sort of a family settlement in favour of Narayan so that after him there should be nothing left for litigation between Narayan and the sons of Defendant 2. Thus, the family settlement appears prima facie to be correct learned Counsel for the Respondent, however, relied upon a case reported in Sundara Sahu and Ors. v. Chamra Sahu and Ors. ILR 1953 Cutt 591 and contended that there must be reciprocity of consideration by the parties in a family settlement, and since nothing was given up by Narayan from his share but on the otherhand he got more than what is legally due to him, the settlement itself is not valid. But the facts of that case, however, are different. Their Lordships also held in that case. "The consideration for the arrangement may be preservation of family property, preservation of peace and honour of the family or avoid litigation." That decision therefore on the other hand may support the contention of the Appellant. It is well-settled that Courts should be inclined to maintain a bonafide family arrangement which is always meant to maintain peace, in a family and to avoid future litigation ultimately resulting in the ruin of the family. In view of the aforesaid discussion of fact as well as law involved in this case, it is clear that Ex. 1 is a valid family settlement between Defendants 1 and 2 and is binding on the minor Plaintiffs. In the result, the Plaintiffs' suit fails, the appeal is allowed and the order of the lower Appellate court is set aside. The parties to bear their own costs so far as this Court is concerned. Final Result : Allowed