JAGDISH RAM Vs. AMAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following substantial question of arises for consideration in the second appeal: -

(2.) IN the suit, the principal contest, was entered by the purchaser -the 4th defendant and the contention that she made along with her vendor, the 3rd defendant was that there had been a family settlement which was reduced into writing on 28.04.1980 under the terms of which the 2nd plaintiff had relinquished his share in the suit property and he had been allotted a share in the house in Ravalwala. Some other details of partition had also been set forth as regards the other properties and we are not concerned about the same. The trial Court decreed the suit for the 2nd plaintiff holding that the 2nd plaintiff himself was not a party to the alleged family partition and he could not be bound by any transaction that would result in forsaking his share in the property. The suit of the plaintiffs 1 and 3 had been dismissed. There had been an appeal by the 3rd plaintiff as also by the 4th defendant. Both the appeals were taken together and the court reversed the judgment of the trial Court holding that even if the 2nd plaintiff had not been a party, a family settlement must be given effect to, makes an equitable division of all the properties. The Court held that the 2nd plaintiff himself had come to some benefit of allotment of property in Ravalwala and, therefore, he could not impeach the sale made by the 3rd defendant with reference to the share that was earmarked for him in the alleged family settlement.

(3.) THE sale made by the 3rd defendant cannot be binding as regards the 2nd plaintiffs share. The evidence brought out that Munshi Ram had 3 sons and 4 daughters, each one of the children had l/7th share. The 2nd plaintiffs entitlement to 1/7th share as decreed by the trial Court is restored and the judgment of the appellate Court is set aside. The second appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 10,000/ -.