1997 JTR(SC) 23
1997 AIR(SC) 808 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 632 ; 1997 1 AllCJ 586 ; 1997 30 AllLR 182 ; 1997 2 APLJ 9 ; 1997 2 CivCC 1 ; 1997 2 CLT(SC) 242 ; 1997 1 Crimes(SC) 180 ; 1997 1 JT 538 ; 1997 2 RCR(Civ) 298 ; 1997 88 RD 188 ; 1997 2 RLW(Raj) 294 ; 1997 1 Scale 292 ; 1997 2 SCC 552 ; 1997 1 SCR 118 ; 1997 KHC 722 ; 1997 1 KLT(Online) 1133 ; 1997 1 Supreme 510
1997(1) Supreme 510
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. Ray and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Gorie Gouri Naidu (Minor) & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Thandrothu Bodemma & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1987
Decided on 9-1-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha Nair, Y. Subba Rao and C. Balasubramaniam, Advocates.
For the Respondents : R. Venugopal Reddy, Sr. Adv. and B. Kanta Rao, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Even if erroneous, an inter party judgment binds the party if the Court of competent jurisdiction has decided the lis.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.11
HINDU LAW : .
(A) The Hindu Law principles governing family settlements and the validity of deeds of gift are considered in the context of the Civil Procedure Code, specifically Section 11, which relates to the competence of courts to adjudicate on property disputes and the binding effect of prior judgments. The impugned decree relies on the earlier determination that the deeds of gift executed by Gowramma were void, and this declaration forms the basis for denying any claim of title by the donees or the plaintiff. The earlier judgment, being from a court of competent jurisdiction, operates as a bar to the present appeal under the doctrine of res judicata, reinforcing the sanctity of family arrangements unless vitiated by fraud, while also underscoring that once the validity of transfers has been judicially settled, subsequent contentions based on those instruments are foreclosed.
(B) Family arrangements are to be upheld and not set aside on technical grounds; estoppel is applied to prevent unsettling settled disputes and preserving family harmony; inter party judgments bind the parties when the court of competent jurisdiction has decided the lis; deeds of gift declared void under Hindu Law render any claim based thereon unsustainable; the High Courts findings are binding in the absence of fraud.
Facts of the case:
A suit for partition and separate possession of half share in A and F Schedule properties along with past and future profits was instituted. The plaintiffs suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, but the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the deeds of gift. Subsequently, an appeal under the Letters Patent was dismissed by the Division Bench, which held that the deeds of gift were void and no title could be claimed on their basis.
Findings of Court:
The earlier decree of the Subordinate Judge and the High Courts judgment in the Letters Patent Appeal are binding; no estoppel arises because the validity of the deeds was already determined; the impugned judgment correctly applied the principle that inter party judgments are conclusive.
Issues:
Whether family arrangements not vitiated by fraud must be enforced; whether estoppel applies to prevent challenge to deeds already declared void; whether an earlier judgment of a competent court binds the parties in subsequent proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi:
An inter party judgment from a competent court is binding and operates as res judicata; deeds of gift declared void under Hindu Law cannot form the basis of a title claim; family arrangements are upheld unless tainted by fraud, but judicial determinations on validity preclude subsequent challenges.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(A) The Hindu Law principles governing family settlements and the validity of deeds of gift are considered in the context of the Civil Procedure Code, specifically Section 11, which relates to the competence of courts to adjudicate on property disputes and the binding effect of prior judgments. The impugned decree relies on the earlier determination that the deeds of gift executed by Gowramma were void, and this declaration forms the basis for denying any claim of title by the donees or the plaintiff. The earlier judgment, being from a court of competent jurisdiction, operates as a bar to the present appeal under the doctrine of res judicata, reinforcing the sanctity of family arrangements unless vitiated by fraud, while also underscoring that once the validity of transfers has been judicially settled, subsequent contentions based on those instruments are foreclosed.
(B) Family arrangements are to be upheld and not set aside on technical grounds; estoppel is applied to prevent unsettling settled disputes and preserving family harmony; inter party judgments bind the parties when the court of competent jurisdiction has decided the lis; deeds of gift declared void under Hindu Law render any claim based thereon unsustainable; the High Courts findings are binding in the absence of fraud.
Facts of the case:
A suit for partition and separate possession of half share in A and F Schedule properties along with past and future profits was instituted. The plaintiffs suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, but the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the deeds of gift. Subsequently, an appeal under the Letters Patent was dismissed by the Division Bench, which held that the deeds of gift were void and no title could be claimed on their basis.
Findings of Court:
The earlier decree of the Subordinate Judge and the High Courts judgment in the Letters Patent Appeal are binding; no estoppel arises because the validity of the deeds was already determined; the impugned judgment correctly applied the principle that inter party judgments are conclusive.
Issues:
Whether family arrangements not vitiated by fraud must be enforced; whether estoppel applies to prevent challenge to deeds already declared void; whether an earlier judgment of a competent court binds the parties in subsequent proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi:
An inter party judgment from a competent court is binding and operates as res judicata; deeds of gift declared void under Hindu Law cannot form the basis of a title claim; family arrangements are upheld unless tainted by fraud, but judicial determinations on validity preclude subsequent challenges.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.
FamilyArrangement - The judgment cites this case to explain the principles governing family arrangements, noting that they should be enforced if honestly made and not vitiated by fraud, though the court ultimately finds it not applicable to the facts due to an earlier binding adjudication.
ORDER
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.
2. 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 but 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 estopped 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 decreed by the Division Bench.
3. 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 has relied on the decision of this Court made in Kale and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors.. It has been held in the said decision that when the member of the family or near 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 a 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 hatred and bad blood between the various members of the family. The Court has held that so far as family arrangements are concerned, the courts lean in favour of family arrangements. Technical or trivial grounds are overlooked. Rule of estoppel is presed into service to prevent unsettling 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 salutary 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.
4. 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 held that such deed 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.
Appeal dismissed.
*******