PARMAL Vs. CHAHLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal must be allowed. The facts are that one Khaman, who died many years ago, left surviving him four sons, Parmal, Hazari, Gokul and Pransukh, who divided his property amongst themselves. Hazari, the second son, died first leaving surviving him a widow named Musammat Mulo, who subsequently was married to the eldest son, Parmal. Afterwards Pransukh died without issue, leaving a widow, Musammat Indo. A question having arisen as to the legal effect of the remarriage of Musammat Mulo, the two surviving brothers came to an arrangement by which, in consideration of his being allowed to retain the property of Hazari, Parmal, the present) plaintiff, agreed to make no claim against Gokul to the property of Pransukh on the death of the widow, Musammat Indo. This arrangement was drawn up in a deed, dated June, 1897, duly executed and registered. This deed has given rise to the question of law we have to decide. Musammat Indo died in 1918. Parmal brought this suit against the defendant, the son of Gokul, for the share of Pransukh. The defendant set up the agreement of 1897.

(2.) The learned District Judge has found that there was a bond fide dispute and that the agreement, if legal, is binding. So far as this is a finding of fact we are bound by it. As a matter of law the existence of a bond fide dispute has always been held to be good consideration sufficient to support a contract, even though the claim which caused the dispute turns out afterwards to have had no foundation. In other words, a family compromise or arrangement, as it is generally called in this country, is good as a contract and binding upon the parties to it and their successors, if it is founded upon a bond fide dispute.

(3.) The learned District Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that the contract amounts to an attempt to transfer the chance of an heir apparent succeeding to an estate, and is therefore illegal under Section 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. On appeal to this Court our brother Rafiq referred this question to two Judges, as being one upon which judicial decisions in India have not always been consistent.