PALANI PILLAI Vs. SENGAMALATHACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal raises the question whether a Hindu minor is bound by a deed of family arrangement entered into on his behalf by his natural guardian in bona fide settlement of claims against the minor's estate and for his benefit.

(2.) ONE Arunachalam Pillai married two wives, Ammalammal and sengamalathachi. By his first wife, Ammalammal, he had no issues. He had a daughter named Dhanalakshmi and a son named Palani by his second wife sengamalam. One Rathnaswami Pillai was the son of his first wife's younger brother. Arunachalam Pillai desired that his daughter. Dhanalakshmi should be given in marriage to Rathnaswami Pillai. He executed a settlement deed on 17-21936 in and by which he settled the A schedule properties attached to that deed absolutely in favour of Dhanalakshmi and Rathnaswami Pillai. Items 1 and 2 of the b schedule properties attached to that settlement deed were to be enjoyed by arunachalam Pillai himself during his lifetime and after him they were to be taken absolutely by Rathnaswami and Dhanalakshmi. Item 3 of the B schedule therein was directed to be enjoyed by his first wife Ammalammal without any right of alienation and after her lifetime that property was to be taken by Dhanalakshmi and Rathnaswami absolutely. On the date of that settlement deed the settlor's second wife, Sengamalam, was enciente and she gave birth to the son Palani on 54-1936. The second wife Sengamalam, did not like the settlement made by her husband as aforesaid and dissentions arose between her and her husband. Acting as the guardian of her minor son, Palani, she filed the suit O. S. No. 11 of 1937 on the file of the District Munsif's court of Thiruvayyaru against her husband arunachalam Pillai and Rathnaswami Pillai challenging the validity of the settlement deed. During the pendency of this suit Arunachalam Pillai died and the suit itself was withdrawn and dismissed on 18-8-1938. But the dispute between rathnaswami and Sengamalam was not resolved and there was mediation between them by persons interested in the welfare of the minor's family. A deed of family arrangement dated 23-2-1940 was brought about between Rathnaswami and Sengamalam by which Rathnaswami obtained 3 items of properties absolutely for himself and relinquished all his claims under the settlement deed in his favour executed by the late Arunachalam Pillai. The items of properties obtained by ramaswami Pillai under the family arrangement were R. S. 506/5 : 12 1/2 cents, r. S. 523/1 : 1-39 1/2 cents; R. S. No. 456/8-27 1/2 cents, all situated in the village of Peramur Tanjore district. These three items were numbers 3, 8 and 9 of the schedule properties attached to the settlement deed of Arunachalam Pillai. The net result of the family arrangement was that Rathnaswami Pillai who got about 1 1/2 acres of land under the settlement from Arunachalam Pillai gave up his claim for a good portion of those lands and was content to receive 80 1/2 cents under the family arrangement between him and Sengamalam. Rathnaswami Pillai did not marry Dhanalakshmi as proposed and wished for by Arunachalam Pillai. He sold ass the three items of properties to one Sivakolunthu Pillai under a registered conveyance dated 17-2-1941. Sivakolunthu conveyed one of the items to one natesa Moopanar and another item to Ramaswami Pillai. Ramaswami Pillai died and Dhanalakshmi married one Subbaraya Pillai in 1944.

(3.) PALANI, the son of Arunachalam Pillai, filed O. S. No. 86 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsif's court of Tiruvayyaru for recovery of possession of the three items of properties which Rathnaswami Pillai took under the family arrangement executed on his behalf by his mother Sengamalam. To that suit he impleaded his mother as the first defendant. Sivakolunthu Pillai, the alienee from Rathnaswami as the second defendant and Natesa Moopanar and Ramaswami Pillai the alienees from Sivakolunthu Pillai as defendants 3 and 4. Defendants 1 and 3 were ex parte and defendants 2 and 4 contested the suit. The plaintiff's case was that the properties comprised in the settlement deed of his father and in the deed of family arrangement by his mother were all ancestral properties incapable of being disposed of either by his father or by his mother. The case of contesting defendants was that the properties were the self-acquired properties of arunachalam Pillai that the settlement by Arunachalam was valid and binding upon the plaintiff and that in any event the family arrangement entered into by the first defending on behalf of the plaintiff being a bona fide settlement of disputes between the members of the family cannot be challenged by the plaintiff.