GORIE GOURI NAIDU (MINOR) AND ANR.versusTHANDROTHU BODEMMA AND ORS.

A                GORIE GOURI NAIDU (MINOR) AND ANR.
                                 v.
                   THANDROTHU BODEMMA AND ORS.

                                JANUARY 9, 1997

B                     [G.N. RAY AD G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

        Code of Civil.Procedure, 1908 : Section 11-Res judicata-Eve11 if er-         y
  roneous, an inter pmty judr,ry11c11t binds the pmty if the Co1ut of competent
  jwisdiction has decided the li.1~Jn an earlier decision Cowt declared that
C deed of gifts were 11ot valid under Hindu Law--Held the said decision was
  binding 011 tire parties-Donees could not claim any title in re~pcct of the said
  propcit)~ft was not open to them to contend that in view of a Jamil)' settle-
  ment the opposite pmty was estopped from challenging validity of the gift deed.

            Kale and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consideration & Ors., [1976) 3
D   sec 119, lield inapplicable.
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 242 of
    1987.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.86 of the Andhra Pradesh
E   High Court in L.P.A No. 134 of 1980.

         K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha Nair, Y. Subba Rao and C.
    Balasubramaniam for the Appellants.

            R. Venugopal Reddy and B. Kanta Rao for the Respondents.
F
            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st March, 1986
    passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Letters
G   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.

           The appellants before this Court arc 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
H    was filed by the aforesaid plaintiff for partition and separate possession of
                                           118
    )
                             G.G. NAIDU v. T.BODEMMA                         119

        her half share in the A and F Schedule of the plaintiff property alongwith A
        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 B
        parties to the fainily settlement were estopped from challenging the validity
        of such deed when being partitioned, they had derived benefits by the said
y
        family settlement. The plaintiff thereafter preferred an appeal before the
        Division Bench under Oause 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 C
        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.


               Mr. Ram Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
        has submitted that family settlement or arrangement between the parties D
        of the family and descendant from the near relation must be given proper
        sanctity and if the family arangements 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 Con- E
        solidation and Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 119. It has been held in the said decision
        that when the members 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 of bring about
        complete harmony and goodwill in the family, the family arrangement
        is riot to be discarded on technical grounds. Family arrangements are F
        governed by a special equity peculiar to themselves, and will be en-
        forced, if honesty made, although they have not been meant as a com-
        pr.omise, but have proceeded from an error of all parties, originating in
        mistake or ignorance of fact as to one what their rights actually depend.
        It has also been indicated in the said judgment that object of the G
        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 H
                                                                                       /




                                                                                       \
    120                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (1997] 1 S.C.R.

A 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 salutory principle of estoppel so far as parties to the family
    settlement are concerned and the Division Bench should not have set aside
B   this said well-reasoned judgment of the learned Single Judge.

           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 Bowaremma was questioned. It was held by
C   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
D   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
E   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
    thf; 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
F   has decided the !is. 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.

    T.N.A.                                                     Appeals dismissed.