Judgment :- These three appeals arise from the judgment and decree in A.S. Nos.6 of 1991, 25 of 1991 and 5 of 1991 on the file or the District Court, Thalasserry which were filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. Nos. 332, 330, and 331 of 1989 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Kannur. 2. S.A. No.288 of 1992 is preferred against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.6 of 1991 which was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 332 of 1989, S.A. No. 529 of 1992 is preferred against the judgment in A.S. No.25 of 1991 which was preferred against the judgment and decree on O.S. No.330 of 1989 and S.A. No.635 of 1992 is preferred against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.5 of 1991 which was preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 331 of 1989 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Kannur. The plaintiff in all the three suits are one and the same person. The suits were filed for specific performance of an agreement executed by the respective defendant in the suit. It is the common case that the plaint schedule building was sold in a suit for partition in O.S. No. 147 of 1974 and was purchased by 5 persons including the plaintiff, the respective defendant and their sister Narayani Amma for a consideration of Rs.99,000/-. The case of the plaintiff is that other co-owners had agreed to release their respective shares in the plaint schedule building for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- per share. Thus, the total value of the building comes to Rs. 50,000/-. The plaint schedule property was purchased jointly by the brothers and sisters to accommodate the wish of their father Raman Nambiar to lead the rest of his life in the house situated in the plaint schedule property till his death. After purchase of the property, the properties belongs to Raman were Partition among the sharers and the land around the plaint schedule property was set apart to the share of the plaintiff. Even though the value at which the purchase was effected by them jointly was much higher, on 30.8.1984 all the five sharers have entered into Ext. A5 agreement to release their share to the plaintiff for a lower price. Even though the value at which the purchase was effected by them jointly was much higher, on 30.8.1984 all the five sharers have entered into Ext. A5 agreement to release their share to the plaintiff for a lower price. All the respective defendants herein directly and sister Narayani Amma through her power of attorney agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. All the four sharers, except Gopalan Nambiar, the defendant in O.S. No.332 of 1989 agreed to release their right for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- per share and Gopalan Nambiar gave up the consideration. The release deed has to be executed within 1 ½ years after the death of their father Raman Nambiar. Raman Nambiar died on 17.1.1988. Narayani Amma released her 1/5th share in favour of the plaintiff on 2.8.1988 through her power of attorney. The plaintiff who was put in possession of the plaint schedule property got the same electrified and had also carried out the repairs. In spite of repeated demands, the respective defendants failed to execute the assignment deed and hence the suit was necessitated. Notice was also issued to the defendants. Even after the acceptance of notice, they did not execute the assignment deed and hence the suit is filed for specific performance of Ext. A5 agreement. 3. The defendants totally deny the execution of Ext. A5. The plaintiff’s husband was conducting the partition suit (O.S. No.147 of 1974) on behalf of the defendants and others. He had obtained signatures in blank papers. Ext. A5 was created making use of such signatures on blank papers. It was further contended that Ext. A5 is for an unfair bargain and could not have been consented to by the parties voluntarily. The discretion vested under Section 20 of the specific Relief Act cannot be invoked in the case of the plaintiff. They pray to dismiss all the three suits. On the above pleadings, the trial court framed necessary issues. All the three suits were jointly tried and a common judgment was passed. On the side of the plaintiff PWs. 1 to 4 were examined and Exts. A1 to A-46 were marked. On the side of the defendants DWs. 1 to 5 were examined and Exts. B1 to B4 were marked. The trial court decreed the suit against which these appeals are filed. 4. On the side of the plaintiff PWs. 1 to 4 were examined and Exts. A1 to A-46 were marked. On the side of the defendants DWs. 1 to 5 were examined and Exts. B1 to B4 were marked. The trial court decreed the suit against which these appeals are filed. 4. The first appellate court modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and found that the agreement against Gopalan Nambiar is not enforceable but granted a decree for specific performance by the other defendants. 5. The substantial question of law formulated in these Second Appeals is whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are perverse. Admittedly, the plaint schedule property was jointly purchased in the name of the plaintiff and defendants and their sister one Narayani Amma, for an amount of Rs.99,000/-. The case of the plaintiff is that the co-sharers of the property agreed to release their right over, the plaint schedule building to the plaintiff as per Ext. A5. The plaintiff, defendants and Narayani Amma are children of one Raman Nambiar. It is the case of the parties that the building was purchased in court auction to fulfill the wish of their father Raman Nambiar to lead the rest of his life in the said house. As per the agreement, the release deed is to be executed after 1 ½ years of the death of their father Raman Nambiar. The execution of Ext. A5 is denied by the defendants. According to them the husband of the plaintiff was conducting the partition suit (O.S. No. 147 of 1974) on behalf of the defendants and others. While conducting the suit, he had obtained signature in blank papers and making use of such signed blank papers, Ext. A5 was created. They have not executed Ext. A5 agreeing to assign their right over the building to the plaintiff. Admittedly the properties of Raman Nambiar were partitioned among the sharers and the property around the plaint schedule building was set apart to the share of the plaintiff. In order to prove Ext. A5 agreement, the plaintiff examined PWs. 1 to 4 PW-2 was a Teacher. His evidence shows that Ext. A5 agreement was executed in his presence. The signatures seen in Ext. A5 were put by them. In order to prove Ext. A5 agreement, the plaintiff examined PWs. 1 to 4 PW-2 was a Teacher. His evidence shows that Ext. A5 agreement was executed in his presence. The signatures seen in Ext. A5 were put by them. He categorically deposed that the executants of the document put their signatures in his presence and it is a genuine document. In cross-examination nothing was brought out to discredit his version. There is nothing to suggest that he is interested in the plaintiff. 6. DWs. 1, 4 and 5 are respectively the defendants in O.S. No. 330 of 1989, O.S. No. 331 of 1989 and O.S. No. 332 of 1989. Their specific case is that the agreement is a fabricated document created with the signed blank papers obtained by the husband of the plaintiff who was conducting O.S. No. 147 of 1974 on their behalf. DWs. 2 and 3 are the witnesses to Ext. A5 document. DW-2 Aboobacker disowned his signature in Ext. A5. But during cross-examination he admitted that the signature seen in Ext. A5 is similar to his signature. A perusal of his evidence shows that he is purposely deposing falsehood before court. DW-3 is the son of defendant in O.S. No. 331 of 1989. He has supported the evidence of DW-1, his mother. He admitted his signature in Ext. A5. AT the time of evidence he has stated that the plaintiff’s husband has obtained his signature also. This version of DW-3 is disbelieved by both the courts since he was not a party in the partition suit. It has come out in evidence that he is not an illiterate person and he has studied up to pre-dgree. Even though the defendants denied the execution of Ext. A5, the evidence by the defendants. Further, the defendants have no case that the plaintiff’s husband has obtained any signatures in any stamp paper. But Ext. A5 is executed in stamp paper. The courts below compared the signatures seen in Ext. A5 with the admitted signatures of the defendants and came to the admitted signatures of the defendants and came to the conclusion that the signatures seen in Ext. A5 is similar to the admitted signatures seen in Ext. A5 is similar to the admitted signatures of the parties. So, the contention that they have not executed Ext. A5 cannot be accepted. A5 is similar to the admitted signatures seen in Ext. A5 is similar to the admitted signatures of the parties. So, the contention that they have not executed Ext. A5 cannot be accepted. The allegation that the plaintiff’s husband was conducting partition suit (O.S. No.147 of 1971)is not proved in this case. On the other hand, it has come out in evidence that the defendants are well educated persons and there is no necessity to engage others to conduct the suit on their behalf. The circumstances would show that for the convenient enjoyment of the plaintiff, a family arrangement was made by the parties assigning to release their right to the plaintiff. Admittedly the land around the plaint schedule building was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. So, it is only natural to make such an arrangement. Ext. A5 is valid and genuine. 7. Another argument advanced by the defendants is that since there was no consideration in respect of the share of Gopalan Nambiar, the agreement is not enforceable against him. As stated earlier, it is only a family arrangement made by the family members. The only thing is that the family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the members of the family. But it should be voluntary. The circumstances under which Ext. A5 is executed is sworn to by PW-1. The insufficiency of consideration will not invalidate a document otherwise valid. Family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary. It is true that Gopalan Nambiar has given up the consideration due to him. But it will not change the settlement entered into between the parties. Therefore, it is enforceable against all the parties in the document. So, the agreement is enforceable against Gopalan Nambiar also. 8. Another contention raised by the defendants is that the suit is barred by limitation. Ext. A5 agreement was on 30.8.1984 and the suit was filed on 15.7.1989. As per Ext. A5 agreement, the suit ought to have been filed within three years from the date of agreement and hence it is barred by limitation. 8. Another contention raised by the defendants is that the suit is barred by limitation. Ext. A5 agreement was on 30.8.1984 and the suit was filed on 15.7.1989. As per Ext. A5 agreement, the suit ought to have been filed within three years from the date of agreement and hence it is barred by limitation. But this argument also cannot be accepted since as per the terms of the agreement, the performance of the contract shall be 1½ year after the death of their father Raman Nambiar. He died only on 17.1.1988. So, the suit is within time and there is no limitation as contended by the defendants. I have already found that the agreement against Gopalan Nambiar is also enforceable. Since the first appellate court found that Ext. A5 is not enforceable against Gopalan Nambiar, the plaintiff filed S.A. No.288 of 1992 against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.6 of 1991 which is filed against O.S. No. 322 of 1989. Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act has no application since Ext. A5 is a family arrangement. In such circumstances, the judgment and decree of the trial court are to be upheld. Thus S.A. No. 288 of 1992 is allowed and S.A. Nos. 529 of 1992 and 635 of 1992 are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.