9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Partition of joint family properties based on alleged family arrangement. Analysis: The suit involved a dispute between two brothers and the widow and son of their eldest brother regarding the partition of certain properties claimed to be joint family assets. The defendants argued that a family arrangement in 1895 divided the properties, making them separate. The main issue was whether this alleged arrangement was valid. The document in question, termed a "will" by the father, actually detailed a family arrangement for immediate partition among the family members. The authenticity and date of the document were not in doubt. However, since the properties were ancestral, the father had no authority to partition them without the consent of all interested parties. The critical question was whether the plaintiffs had consented to this arrangement, which would also bind their sons. The Privy Council found overwhelming evidence of the plaintiffs' acceptance of the partition. The document was more than a will; it represented a family arrangement acted upon by all parties for ten years without dispute. The term "will" was deemed a misnomer, and the document clearly outlined a contemporaneous partition. The provision allowing cancellation in case of mismanagement or bad behavior was viewed as a contractual condition, not sufficient to prevent the immediate partition. The judgment affirmed the lower court's decision on the village property but differed on two buildings, ruling that the disposition in the document did not amount to an absolute transfer. Regarding movable property, not addressed in the arrangement, the plaintiffs were entitled to their share as inherited assets. The High Court had allowed the plaintiffs' appeal and dismissed the defendants', a decision the Privy Council disagreed with. They advised that the High Court's order be reversed, restoring the Subordinate Judge's decree. The plaintiffs were directed to pay the costs of the defendants' appeal, while the defendants were to bear the costs of their unsuccessful appeal.
|
