My Lord, Family Arrangements?
“Paragraph 9 of Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119 deserves full respect.”
– Hon’ble Justice Shiva Kirti Singh, Rajni Sanghi v. Western India State Motors, [Civil Appeal No. 3698 of 2006].
Paragraph 9 of Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119
[By virtue of a family arrangement members of a family descending from a common ancestor or a near relation seek to sink their differences and disputes, settle and resolve their conflicting claims or disputed titles once and for all in order to buy peace of mind and bring about complete harmony and good will to the family…]
Kerr on Fraud at pp. 364:
[The principles which apply to the case of ordinary compromise between strangers, do not equally apply to the case of compromises in the nature of family arrangements. Family arrangements are governed by a special equity peculiar to themselves, and will be enforced if honestly made…
The object of the arrangement is to protect the family from long drawn litigation or perpetual strifes which mar the unity and solidarity of the family… to maintain and uphold the unity and homogeneity of the family which ultimately results in the unification of the society and, therefore, of the entire country, is the prime need of the hour… The Courts have, therefore, leaned in favour of upholding a family arrangement instead of disturbing the same on technical or trivial grounds.]
Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 17, at pp. 215-216:
[… Matters which would be fatal to the validity of similar transactions between strangers are not objections to the binding effect of family arrangements.]
The Paragraph 9 belongs to Hon’ble Justice Syed Murtaza Fazal Ali. “He was the son of Sir S. Fazl Ali who was one of the members of the SCI’s first bench…He chose to spell his surname differently than his father’s to avoid confusion” (See, George H. Gadbois, Jr., Judges of the Supreme Court of India 1950-1989, Oxford).