http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: GORLE GOURI NAIDU (MINOR) & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THANARATHU BODEMMA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/01/1997

BENCH: G.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th March, 1986  passed by  the Division  Bench  of  the  Andhra Pradesh High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 134 of 1980. The said  Letters Patent  Appeal arose  out of  the judgment dated 23rd April, 1979 in A.S. No. 29 of 1977.      The appellants  before this  Court are the heirs of the defendant No.4  in O.S.  No.10 of 1973 filed in the Court of the learned Single Judge Parvathi Puram by the respondent M. Thandrothu Bodemma. The said suit was filed by the aforesaid plaintiff for  partition and separate possession of her half share in  the A  and F  Schedule of  the plaintiff  property alongwith past  and future  profits. Such suit was dismissed by the  learned Subordinate  Judge out  the appeal preferred before the  High Court  being appeal  No. 514  of  1968  was allowed by  the High  Court  and  the  plaintiff  thereafter preferred appeal  No. 29  of 1977  before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Such appeal was also dismissed by the High Court inter alia  holding that  parties to  the family  settlement were estoped from challenging the validity of such deed when being partitioned,  they had  derived benefits  by the  said family settlement.  The plaintiff  thereafter  preferred  an appeal before  the Division  Bench under  Clause 15  of  the Letters Patent. Such appeal has been allowed by the impugned judgment and  the Division  Bench has held that all the four deed of  gifts which were executed by Gowramma were declared void and it was not open for the donees under the said deeds to claim  any title.  The suit  was therefore  decree by the Division Bench.      Mr. Ram  Kumar, the  learned counsel  appearing for the appellant,  has   submitted  that   family   settlement   or arrangement between the parties of the family and descendant from the  near relation must be given proper sanctity and if the family arrangements are not being vitiated by fraud, the said  family  arrangements  must  be  enforced  between  the parties to  the family  arrangements.  In  support  of  this contention he  was relied on the decision of this Court made in Kale  and Ors.  Vs. Deputy  Director of Consolidation and Ors.(1976 (3)  SCC 119).  It  has  been  held  in  the  said decision that  when  the  members  of  the  family  or  near

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

relations seek  to  sink  their  differences  and  disputes, settle and  resolve their  conflicting  claims  or  disputed titles once  for all in order to buy peace of mind and bring about complete  harmony and  goodwill  in  the  family,  the family arrangement  is not  to  be  discarded  on  technical grounds. Family  arrangements  are  governed  by  a  special equity peculiar  to themselves,  and will  be  enforced,  if honestly  made,   although  they  have  not  been  meant  as compromise, but have proceeded from an error of all parties, originating in  mistake or  ignorance of  fact as to on what their rights  actually depend. It has also been indicated in the said  judgment that  object of  the  arrangement  is  to protect the  family from  long-drawn litigation or perpetual strifes which man the unity and solidarity of the family and create parted  and pad  blood between the various members of the family.  The Court  has  held  that  so  far  as  family arrangements and  concerned, the  courts lean  in favour  of family  arrangements.   Technical  or  trivial  grounds  are overlocked. Ruled  of estoped  is  presed  into  service  to prevent unsetting  of a settled dispute. Relying on the said decision. Mr.  Ram Kumar  has  submitted  that  the  learned Single Judge  of  the  High  Court  has  also  applied  this salutory principle  of estoppel  so far  as parties  to  the family settlement  are  concerned  and  the  Division  Bench should not  have set  aside this said well-reasoned judgment of the learned Single Judge.      It however  appears to  us that  previously between the parties another  suit was  instituted in  the Court  of  the learned Subordinate  Judge Srikakulam  being  original  suit No.50 of 1954. In the said suit, the validity of the deed of gifts made  by Sowaramma  was questioned. It was held by the learned Subordinate  Judge that  the said deed of gifts were not valid  under the  Hindu Law. The appeal was taken to the Andhra Pradesh High Court being appeal No.514 of 1968 and by judgment dated  12.2.1971, the  High Court  disposed of  the said appeal  No.514 of  1968 wherein the High Court disposed of the  said appeal  No.514 of  1968 wherein  the High Court held that  such dead  of gift  was invalid  in law.  By  the impugned judgment,  the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court  has held that in view of such declaration of the said deed  of gifts  as invalid,  no claim  of title  on the basis of  the said  deed of gift or family settlement can be made. In  our view,  such decision  of the division Bench is Justified since  the said  earlier decision in declaring the deeds of  gift as  invalid, is  binding between the parties. There is  no occasion  to consider the principle of estoppel since considered  by the  learned Single  Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case for holding the said transfers as valid,  in  view  of  the  earlier  adjudication  on  the validity of  the said deeds in the previous suit between the parties. The  law is well settled that even if erroneous, an inter party  judgment  binds  the  party  if  the  court  of competent jurisdiction  has decided  the lis. We, therefore, find no  reason to  interfere with  the impugned decision of the High Court. This appeal therefore fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs.