CHABLI Vs. PARMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I agree that this appeal must be allowed. The facts are that one Khamani, who died many years ago, left surviving him four sons Parmal, Hazari, Gokul and Pransukh, who divided his property amongst themselves. Hazari, the 2nd son, died first, leaving surviving him a widow named Musammat Mullo, 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 re-marriage of Musammat Mullo, the two surviving brothers same 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 Gokal 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 1913. 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 bona 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 bona 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 bona fide dispute.

(3.) The learned District Judge has decreed 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 Rafique referred this question to two Judges, being one upon which judicial decisions in India have not always been consistent.