Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1542 (MAD)

Kasim Beevi & Others v. Sowr Beevi & Others

2007-05-16

V.DHANAPALAN

body2007
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. Aggrieved by the order and decretal order, dated 30.9.1994 made in A.S. No. 197 of 1993 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Dindigul, preferred against the judgment and decreetal order, dated 30.8.1991 in O.S. No. 734 of 1983 on the file of the Additional District Munisif, Dindigul, defendants 1 to 6 and 9 have preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the plaintiff as put of the before the Trial Court is as follows: The suit property and other properties originally belonged to Sheik Ismail Rowther. He died intestate leaving behind six sons, namely Madharsha, Mohammed Meera, Mohammed Aliyar, Peer Mohammed, Sikandar Basha and Khadersha. After the demise of Sheik Ismail Rowther, all his six sons inherited his properties and were in possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, the eldest son Madharsha died and his legal heirs executed the Release Deed, Exhibit A-3, dated 2. 1974 in favour of remaining five sons. The legal heirs of the deceased Mohammed Aliyar, Peer Mohammed and Sikkander Batcha released their share in favour of Khader Sha, the sixth defendant. Since the sixth defendant obtained more share he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Sowr Beevi, daughter of the deceased Peer Mohammed, who is the son of the deceased Sheik Ismail Rowther purchased the 1/6th share from her mother and three brothers under Exhibit A-2-Sale Deed, dated, 112. 1982. She filed a suit for partition of her 1/6th share in O.S. No. 734 of 1983. 3. The defendants case is that the suit property pursuant to the oral family partition in 1954, under a family arrangement. Was given to Sikandar Basha and Khader the 6th defendant under Exhibit B-3, dated 13. 1979, an unregistered document. Though, the document is called Partition Release Deed", it is infact a family arrangement under which the other members of Shiek Ismail Rowther family gave the suit property towards the marriage of Sikandar Basha and Kadher Shah, the 6th defendant. 4. The defendants have examined the 6th defendant Khader Shah, Ayeeshah Beevi as P.W.2 and one of the executants of Exhibit B-3, Khader Pichai. Ayeeshah Beevi is the widow of Mohammed Aliyar, one of the sons of Shiek Ismail Rowther. 4. The defendants have examined the 6th defendant Khader Shah, Ayeeshah Beevi as P.W.2 and one of the executants of Exhibit B-3, Khader Pichai. Ayeeshah Beevi is the widow of Mohammed Aliyar, one of the sons of Shiek Ismail Rowther. In her pleading, she has admitted that the 6th defendant Khader Shah was giving income to the co-sharers out of the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiff has admitted that the 6th defendant is in possession of the suit properties. The defendants pleaded an oral partition in 1954 and on 13. 1979, the other sharers pursuant to the oral partition gave a release deed in favour of the 6th defendant and Sikandar Basha. According to the defendants, the said document is called a Release deed, it is a memorandum of family arrangement to the oral partition in 1954. 5. According to the defendants, the plaintiff cannot dispute the oral partition since their sale deed Exhibit A-2 itself admits oral partition and the plaintiffs reliance on Exhibit A-3,Release Deed is misplaced. Since the original of the document is not filed, the plaintiffs sale deed, Exhibit A-2 itself recites an oral in the family. It is the case of the defendants that Exhibit B3, an unregistered document can be used for a collateral purpose to prove possession and that a family arrangement does not require registration. 6. The Trial Court on evaluation of the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case found that the suit properties were released in favour of the defendant towards his marriage and that the plaintiff has no right to claim adverse possession of the properties and accordingly dismissed the suit. 7. The Lower Appellate Court on perusal of the facts of the case and the evidence on record that the defendants, though claim to be in possession of the properties by way of a family arrangement in the year 1954, has not proved the same properly. The document produced on their behalf is an unregistered one. In such circumstances, the Lower Appellate Court held in favour of the plaintiff that she is entitled to claim 1/6th share in the suit property and the judgment of the Trial Court was set aside. Aggrieved by the finding of the Lower Appellate Court, the defendants have preferred this appeal seeking reversal of the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court. .8. Aggrieved by the finding of the Lower Appellate Court, the defendants have preferred this appeal seeking reversal of the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court. .8. At the time of admitting this Second Appeal on 12. 1995, this Court raised the following substantial question of law: .“Whether the Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence with regard to the adverse possession claimed by the defendants by its failure to consider the circumstances of the ridge in the suit property dividing into two and also the nonpayment of kit for this property (Patta No. 176) by the plaintiffs vendor?" .9. Mr. M.V. Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Lower Appellate Court ought to have confirmed the finding of fact decided by the Trial Court that the defendants have been in absolute uninterrupted possession of the suit property for well-over 33 years and had perfect title by prescription. He further contended that the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have accepted the defendants case that the suit property was set apart for the marriage expenses of Kader Shad, the sixth defendant and Sikkandar Basha under the terms of Exhibit B-3, dated 13. 1979. It was his further contention that the sale deed Exhibit A-2, dated 112. 1982 in favour of the plaintiff was executed long after the execution of Exhibit B-3 allotting the property towards the marriage expenses of Kader Sha, the sixth defendant and Sikkandar Basha. According to him, the Lower Appellate Court had failed to see that the plaintiffs vendors had no right to execute Exhibit A-2, Sale Deed, dated 112. 1982 in favour of the plaintiff. 10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants relied on the following judgments: (i) In the case of Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh and Others, ( AIR 1988 SC 881 ) in the Supreme Court has held as follows: "Admittedly, there was a partition by metes and bounds of the agricultural lands and the shares allotted to the two branches were separately mutated in the revenue records. There was thus a disruption of joint status. All that remained was the partition of the ancestral residential house. The document does not effect a partition but merely re-cords the nature of the arrangement arrived at as regards the division of the remaining property. A mere arrangement to divide does not require registration. There was thus a disruption of joint status. All that remained was the partition of the ancestral residential house. The document does not effect a partition but merely re-cords the nature of the arrangement arrived at as regards the division of the remaining property. A mere arrangement to divide does not require registration. But, if the writing itself effects a division, it must be registered." .(ii) In the case of Thayyullathil Kunhikannan and Others v. Thayyullathil Kalliani and Others, 1990 Kerala 226 in the Kerala High Court has held as follows: "A family arrangement is an agreement between the members of the same family, intended to be generally and reasonably for the benefit of the family either by compromising doubtful or disputed rights or by pre-serving the family property or the peace and security of the family by avoiding litigation or by saving its honour. The agree may be implied from a long course of dealings, but it is more usual to embody or to effectuate the agreement in a deed to which the term "family arrangement" is applied. Family arrangements are respected, and acted upon, by Courts. Courts are reluctant to upset such arrangements validly entered into by the parties. As observed by HALSBURY Volume 18 at page 137 paragraph 304: "Family arrangements are governed by principles which are not applicable to dealings between strangers. When deciding the rights of parties under a family arrangement or a claim to upset such an arrangement, the Court considers what in the broadest view of the matter is most in the interest of the family, and has regard to considerations which, in dealing with transactions between persons not members of the same family, would not be taken into account. Matters which would be fatal to the validity or similar transactions between strangers are not objections to the binding effect of family arrangements." The matter is again dealt with by SARKAR in his LAW OF EVIDENCE 13th Edition page 1128: "A family arrangement has been defined as an arrangement between members of the same family, intended to be generally and reasonably for the benefit of the family either by compromising doubtful or disputed rights or by preserving the family property or the peace and security of the family by avoiding litigating or by saving its honour." (iii)The Supreme Court in the case of Hari Shankar Singhania and Others v. Gaur Hari Singhania and Others, AIR 2006 SC 2488 : (2006) 3 MLJ 243 has held as follows at p. 252 of MLJ: "16. Another fact that assumes importance at this stage is that, a family settlement is treated differently from any other formal commercial settlement as such settlement in the eyes of law ensures peace and good-will among the family members. Such family settlements generally meet with approval of the Courts. Such settlements are governed by a special equity principle where the terms are fair and bona fide, taking into account the well being of a family. The concept of family arrangement or settlement and the present one in hand, in our opinion, should be treated differently. Technicalities of limitation etc should not be put at risk of the implementation of a settlement drawn by a family, which is essential for maintaining peace and harmony in a family. Also it can be seen from decided cases of this Court that, any such arrangement would be upheld if family settlements were entered into ally disputes existing or apprehended and even any dispute or different apart, if it was entered into bona fide to maintain peace or to bring about harmony in the family. Even a semblance of a claim or some other ground, as say affection, may suffice as observed by this Court in the case of Ram Charan v. Girija Nandini, AIR 1966 SC 323 . In Lala Khunni Lal Vs. Kunwar Gobind Krishna Nairain, the Privy Council examined that it is the duty of the Courts to uphold and give full effect to a family arrangement. 17. In Lala Khunni Lal Vs. Kunwar Gobind Krishna Nairain, the Privy Council examined that it is the duty of the Courts to uphold and give full effect to a family arrangement. 17. In Sahu Madho Das and Others v. Pandit Mukand Ram andAnother, 1955 (2) SCR22 (Vivian Bose, Jagannadhadas And B.P. Sinha) placing reliance on Clifton Vs.Cockburn, (1834) 3 My X K 76 and William Vs. William, (1866) LR 2Ch 29, this Court held that a family arrangement can, as a matter of law, be implied from a long course of dealings between the parties. It was held that" ... 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.." 47. The real question in this case as framed by the Court was whether the plaintiff assented to the family arrangement. The Court examined that the family arrangement was one composite whole in which the several dispositions formed parts of the same transaction. 48. ... Courts give effect to a family settlement upon the broad and general ground that its object is to settle existing or future disputes regarding property amongst members of a family... The consideration for such a settlement will result in establishing or ensuring amity and good-will amongst persons bearing relationship with one an-other." 49. In Maturi Pullaiah Vs. Maturi Narasimhan, ( AIR 1966 SC 1836 ), this Court held that "although conflict of legal claims in praesenti or in future is generally a condition for the validity of family arrangements, 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 family arrangement. 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 it." 53....a family settlement which settles disputes within the family should not be lightly interfered with especially when the settlement has been already acted upon by some members of the family. In the present case, from 1989 to 1995, the Memorandum of Understanding has been substantially acted upon and hence the parties must be held to the settlement which is in the interest of the family and which avoids disputes between the members of the family. Such settlements have to be viewed a little differently from ordinary contracts and their internal mechanism for working out the settlement should not be lightly disturbed." 11. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the defendants have not all proved the oral partition in the year 1954, whereas, the plaintiff has disproved the case of oral partition by producing Exhibit A-3, Re-lease Deed and Exhibit A-4-Joint Patta. Ac-cording to the learned counsel, when there was no oral partition in the year 1954 as alleged by the defendants, Exhibit B-3, dated 13. 1979. will not support the case of the defendants, as it is an unregistered document. Learned counsel pleaded that since the defendants have not proved the oral partition in the year 1954 and the execution of Exhibit B-3-unregistered Release Deed, no point arises for consideration in the Second Appeal and the same may be dismissed. 12. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the following decisions: (i) In the case of Janaki Pandyani v. Ganeshwar Panda (dead) by Lrs. and Another, 2001(1) ETC 109 in the Supreme Court of India has held as follows: "2. ..: Admittedly, the property in dispute is joint family property and the plaintiff and the defendants are the co-sharers of the property. In fact, there is no partition of the property and so long as property is not partitioned, it continues to be a joint Hindu family property. Under such circumstances, one co-sharer cannot claim adverse possession against the other co-sharer." .(ii) In the case of P. Shanmugasamy v. Kausalya alias Krishnaveni, (2004) 4 MLJ 51 ) in this Court has held as follows at p. 52 of MLJ: "6. The document dated 20.1.1970 which is styled as receipt is perused. The document is said to have been written by the plaintiff. The document is sought to be produced by the 7th defendant. As per the document, it is stated that the plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards relinquishment of her share in the family property, pursuant to the family arrangement. Therefore, it is clear that the document is valued at Rs. The document is sought to be produced by the 7th defendant. As per the document, it is stated that the plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards relinquishment of her share in the family property, pursuant to the family arrangement. Therefore, it is clear that the document is valued at Rs. 3,000/-. The document, more than Rs. 100/- should be registered. The document is not registered and so it need not be received in evidence and it cannot be looked into for any purpose. 7. ... "Registration Act, 1908, Section 49 – Evidence Act, 1872, Section 92–Collateral purpose – stamped and unregistered partition deed filed to establish partition and allotment of properties. Documents cannot be received and admitted in evidence. Documents has to be stamped and registered. (iii) This Court In the case of Lingappa Gounder v. Palanisamy Gounder and Others, (2006) 1 MLJ 423 : 2006 (2) CTC 36 has held as follows: 13. In Bhagwan Kaur v. Ranjit Singh, AIR (1990 Pun & Har 89), it is held that the exchange of property can be made orally followed by delivery of possession and the same can be accepted if entries are made in the mutation register. In the case on hand, admittedly there is no entry in the mutution register about the alleged exchange of property. The alleged exchange is said to have been made prior to 1956. Exhibit A-1 is dated 28. 1986, wherein the recitals contain the existence of the suit common cart-track, Exhibit A-2 dated 19. 1980, the parent document of Exhibit Al also de-scribes the existence of the cart-track and the right of the purchaser of the land to en-joy the suit cart-track: In Exhibit A-3, sale deed dated 24. 1984 also there is a mention about the common cart-track. On the contrary, D.W.1 merely states that the said recitals are made mistakenly by following the earlier document at the time of registration of those documents. In addition to that, there is no pleading to the effect that mutation of record had taken place at any point of time after the alleged giving of 20 cents by the predecessors-in-title of the defendants in favour of the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff in lieu of giving up of the right of enjoyment of the common cart-track. In addition to that, there is no pleading to the effect that mutation of record had taken place at any point of time after the alleged giving of 20 cents by the predecessors-in-title of the defendants in favour of the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff in lieu of giving up of the right of enjoyment of the common cart-track. Hence, the contention of the defendants that the appellant/plaintiff cannot maintain the suit in view of the giving up of the right by their predecessors-in-title, is clearly unsustainable and on that score also the findings given by the lower Appellate Court is unsustainable." (iv) This Court in the case of Hi. Sheet Industries, Ambur Town, Vellore District v. Litelon Limited, Hosur, (2007) 1 MLJ 320 (FB) : 2006 (5) CTC 609 (FB) has held as follows at p. 336 of MLJ: "13. Ordinarily, a Suit is tried at all stages on the cause of action as it existed on the date of its institution, but it is open to the Court even including a Court of appeal to take notice of the events which have happened after the institution of the suit and afford relief to the parties in the changed circumstances, where it is shown that the relief claimed originally has (1) by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate, or (2) where it is necessary to take notice of the changed circumstances, in order to shorten the litigation or (3) to do complete justice between the parties." 13. Heard both sides. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and the citations relied on by them in support of their arguments. 14. An analytical view of this case in a nut-shell is that the suit property originally belonged to one Sheik Ismail Rowther, who died intestate in the year 1954 leaving behind his six sons. There was an oral partition in the year 1954 among the six sons and after the demise of Sheik Ismail Rowther, all his six sons inherited his property and were in possession.and enjoyment of the same. The eldest son of Sheik Ismail Rowther, namely, Madarsha died and his legal heirs executed a Release Deed, dated 2. 1974 marked as Exhibit A-3, in favour of the remaining five sons. The eldest son of Sheik Ismail Rowther, namely, Madarsha died and his legal heirs executed a Release Deed, dated 2. 1974 marked as Exhibit A-3, in favour of the remaining five sons. The legal heirs of the deceased Mohammed Meera, Mohammed Aliyar, Peer Mohammed and Sikandar Basha released their share in favour of Kadar Sha, the 6th defendant and thereby he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. 15. Sowr Beevi, daughter of the deceased Peer Mohammed, one of the sons of Sheik Ismail Rowther, purchased 1/6th share from her mother and three brothers under Exhibit A-2, Sale Deed, dated 112. 1982, based on which she filed a suit for partition of her 1 /6th share in the suit schedule property. It is also seen that after the family partition in the year 1954, the suit property was given to Sikandar Basha and Kader Sha, the sixth defendant, under Exhibit B-3, dated 13. 1979, by way of family arrangement. It appears that the family arrangement among the family members of Sheik Ismail Rowther took place by means ofa Release Deed and the same was not registered. 16. On the side of the defendants, Kader Sha, the sixth defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ayeesha Beevi was examined as D. W.2.One of the executants of Exhibit B3, dated 13. 1979, Kader Pitchai was examined as D. W.3 . Ayeesha Beevi, who is the widow of the deceased Mohammed Aliyar, one of the sons of Sheik Ismail Rowther has admitted that the sixth defendant, Kader Sha was giving income to the co-sharers out of the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. It is an admitted case of the plaintiff that the sixth defendant is in possession of the suit properties. By virtue of the oral partition in 1954 as well as the family arrangement on 13. 1979, the other co-sharers, pursuant to the oral partition executed the Release Deed in favour of Sikandar Basha and the sixth defendant, Kader Sha. The family arrangement in Exhibit B-3, dated 13. 1979 is a Memorandum of Understanding between the family members, pursuant to the oral partition in 1954. There is no dispute about the status of the document under Exhibit B-3 as unregistered one, which has been used for the collateral purpose to prove the possession and the family arrangement. 17. The family arrangement in Exhibit B-3, dated 13. 1979 is a Memorandum of Understanding between the family members, pursuant to the oral partition in 1954. There is no dispute about the status of the document under Exhibit B-3 as unregistered one, which has been used for the collateral purpose to prove the possession and the family arrangement. 17. After careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the properties were released in favour of the sixth defendant, Kader Sha towards his marriage expenses and the plaintiff has no right to claim adverse possession of the properties and accordingly dismissed the suit. However; the decree and judgment of the Trial Court has been reversed by the Lower Appellate Court, holding that though the defendants claimed to have possession of the properties by way of a family arrangement in the year 1954, they have not proved the same properly and the document produced on their behalf is an unregistered one, i.e., Exhibit B-3, dated 13. 1979. The Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff is entitled to claim 1/6th share in the suit property. 18. This Court has formulated the question of law as to whether the Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence with regard to the adverse possession claimed by the defendants by its failure to consider the circumstances of the ridge in the suit property dividing into two and also the non-payment of kist for this property (Patta No. 176) by the plaintiffs vendor. 19. I have given a careful consideration to the facts of this case. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the family arrangement by way of a Release Deed under Exhibit B-3, dated 13. 1979, based on the oral partition in the year 1954 can be used for collateral purpose to prove the possession and whether the family arrangement under Exhibit B-3, an unregistered document can be received and admitted in evidence. 20. From the rulings of the Supreme Court referred to above in Hari Shankar and Others v. Gaur Hari Singhania and Others (supra) as well as in Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh and Others (supra), it is seen that categorical propositions have been laid down therein that the concept of `family arrangement or Settlement should be treated differently. 20. From the rulings of the Supreme Court referred to above in Hari Shankar and Others v. Gaur Hari Singhania and Others (supra) as well as in Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh and Others (supra), it is seen that categorical propositions have been laid down therein that the concept of `family arrangement or Settlement should be treated differently. Any such arrangement would be upheld if family settlements were entered into ally disputes existing or apprehended and even any dispute or different apart, if it was entered into bona fide to maintain peace or to bring about harmony in the family. It is also the legal position that the Memorandum of Understanding has been substantially acted upon and hence the parties must be held to the settlement which is in the interest of the family and which avoids disputes between the members of the family. Such settlements have to be viewed a little differently from ordinary contracts and their internal mechanism for working out the settlement should not be lightly disturbed. 21. In a decision reported in the case of Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh (supra), in paragraph 9, the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows: It is well-settled that while an instrument of partition which operates or is intended to operate as a declared volition constituting or severing ownership and causes a change of legal relation to the property divided amongst the parties to it, required registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act, a writing which merely recites that there has in time past been a partition, is not a declaration of will, but a mere statement of fact and it does not require registration. The Supreme Court further held that there are two propositions, which are as follows: (1) A partition may be effected orally; but, if it is subsequently reduced into a form of a document and that document purports by itself to effect a division and embodies all the terms of bargain, it will be necessary to register it. If it be not registered, Section 49 of the Act will prevent its being admitted in evidence. If it be not registered, Section 49 of the Act will prevent its being admitted in evidence. .(2) The evidence of the factum of partition will not be admissible by reason of Section 91 of the Evidence Act, 1872. If it be not registered, Section 49 of the Act will prevent its being admitted in evidence. If it be not registered, Section 49 of the Act will prevent its being admitted in evidence. .(2) The evidence of the factum of partition will not be admissible by reason of Section 91 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Partition lists which are mere records of a previously completed partition between the parties, will be admitted in evidence even though they are unregistered, to prove the fact of partition." 22. On a perusal of the evidence as well as the family arrangements made by the sons of Sheik Ismail Rowther in the year 1954, it is seen that the Release Deed executed in Exhibit B-3, dated 13. 1979 is in the form of a family arrangement and has the consequential effect of giving benefit to the family, that too, for the purpose of marriage of one of the sons. There-fore, in the instant case, the family arrangement made and the subsequent document in Exhibit B-3, dated 13. 1979 are in effect as documents of a family arrangement and there-fore in view of the said legal position, those documents, even though not registered can be relied upon for the purpose of proving possession and that a family arrangement does not re-quire registration. 23. The second question that arises for consideration is whether the adverse possession claimed by the plaintiff, Sowr Beevi, by virtue of the oral partition and the family arrangement is valid in the eye of law. In the instant case, the plaintiffs brother, Kader Pitchai has himself given evidence as regards the oral partition and the release of the property in favour of Sikandar Basha and Kader Sha, the sixth defendant. One another member of the family, Ayeeshah Beevi, who was examined as P.W.2 has also supported the defendants case of oral partition and subsequent allotment of suit property to Sikandar Batcha and Kader Sha, the sixth defendant. 24. These important pieces of evidence has to be properly looked into by the Lower Appel late Court, which in my opinion are not properly considered by it. The ridge dividing the lands of Sikandar Basha and Kader sha, the sixth defendant and the nonpayment of Kist of the plaintiffs vendor has also not been properly considered by the Lower Appellate Court. On the basis of recitals of Exhibit A-2, Sale Deed, dated 12. The ridge dividing the lands of Sikandar Basha and Kader sha, the sixth defendant and the nonpayment of Kist of the plaintiffs vendor has also not been properly considered by the Lower Appellate Court. On the basis of recitals of Exhibit A-2, Sale Deed, dated 12. 1982 and Exhibit B-3, unregistered Release Deed, dated 13. 1979 and the evidence of D.W.3 regarding the existence of ridge, the Lower Appellate Court ought to have given proper consideration of the judgment of the Trial Court, which is based on a clear concept of family arrangement in India. Therefore, the findings rendered by the Lower Appellate Court are not only contrary to the concept of accepting family arrangement and also the evidences are not proved under what circumstances, the partition as well as family arrangement are made. The Lower Appellate Court has also not considered that the plaintiffs father was a party to the oral partition and family arrangement, now based on a document dated 112. 1982, marked as Exhibit A-2, that too, from their mother and brothers. 25. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court in accepting the document Exhibit B-3, dated 13. 1979 to give effect to the family arrangement and the dismissal of the suit is perfectly valid in the eye of law. Apart from that, a family arrangement is an agreement between the members of the same family, intended to be generally and reasonably for the benefit of the family either by compromising doubtful or disputed sights or by preserving the family property or the peace and security of the family by avoiding litigation or by saving its honour. Also, the family arrangement is governed by the principles which are not applicable to the dealings between strangers. When deciding the rights of parties under a family arrangement in the interest of the family, transactions between persons not members of the same family would not be taken into account. Similar transactions between strangers are not objections to the binding effect of family arrangements. 26. When deciding the rights of parties under a family arrangement in the interest of the family, transactions between persons not members of the same family would not be taken into account. Similar transactions between strangers are not objections to the binding effect of family arrangements. 26. At the end, on consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the governing principles in deciding the family arrangements in the matter of this kind and uopon perusing the material records and also giving due consideration to the Rulings of the supreme Court and other Courts , Iam of the considered view that the findings rendered by the Lower Appellate Court is in no way in conformity with the said legal position. On the contrary, the Lower Appellate Court has rendered contra findings and has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is set aside and thereby the judgment of the Trial Court in dismissing the suit is restored. The Second Appeal is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Second appeal allowed.