 Good evening, one and all. It was quite a long time since we were connected with Sri Krishna and Tagliya, who is a civil judge as well as the presiding officer in the labour court in the Jabalpur. And I was before connecting on this platform, I was telling him that one of my foundations for education is also from Jabalpur. The knowledge sharing part is a common platform, but they say that some things are distinct. And same is the way today that we are connected with Sri Krishna and Tagliya. And it is since we have been into this webinar sharing for more than two years. And I've been watching that Sri Krishna has been following the channel of Beyond Laws like anything. And even otherwise in few WhatsApp groups, he's connected with us where there is common legal sharing. And we thought why not ask someone who is well versed with law, his articles are being published in bar and bench and live law. An important aspect of law, law relating to family settlements. This is an issue which keeps on boiling. And also, as I say with the lawyers coming into being and the judges, it increases also in the right manner if there are right legal inputs. To understand these nitty-gritties of the same, I request Sri Krishna and Tagliya to share this knowledge. Over to you. Thank you Vikas ji. Good evening everyone. The law relating to family arrangement is a very short topic. It won't take much time, but I would like to take you to the niceties of the topic. First of all, family arrangement, it is an arrangement between members of the family with a view to establish or ensure the continuity of harmony between the members of the family and to prevent the members of the family from long drawn future litigation and to ensure peace in the family. So there is no statutory definition or requirements as to how a family arrangement should be in India. But the law that has developed is out of judicial precedence. First of all, I would like to advert to the Holsbury's laws of England to show what is meant by a family arrangement. I quote, a family arrangement is an agreement between members of the same family intended to be generally and reasonably for the benefit of the family, either by compromising doubtful or disputed rights or by preserving the family property or the peace and security of the family by avoiding litigation or by saving its honor. I shall be dealing with the topic I have divided into various subheads. I would enumerate those subheads first. Family settlement, how made, when registration not required, effect of non-registration, meaning of family, parties to be family settlement, existence of disputes and family arrangement, consideration in family arrangement, family settlement and its object, requirement of bona fides, some important facts about family settlement, requirement of antecedent title, is family settlement of self-acquired properties possible, family settlement of partition, family settlement and will, family settlement under Muslim law, enforcing family arrangements, family settlement and stop-on. So, first question that arises is how is a family settlement made? There is no requirement of a family arrangement to be in writing, it can be made orally. If it is in writing, two circumstances may arise. If the written document containing the family arrangement is a past, acknowledges a past oral arrangement, family arrangement, then the subsequent writing need not be registered and need not be stumped. But if the document containing the family arrangement is not evidence of an oral, earlier family arrangement, but the document itself effects the family arrangement, then the document has to be registered and has to be duly stumped. If the document containing the family arrangement which is required to be registered is not registered, then as per section 49 of the registration act, the document does not affect the properties comprised in the deed, what it can be used at the best is for collateral purposes. Now, meaning of family, the term family, a proposed the concept of family arrangement has been given a very wide It does not include merely the close relatives of a family or it does not include only those members of a family who would succeed to a person's property on his death by the personal laws of succession. The effects court has widened the scope of the term family. It includes all those people who are related to each other and who have an antecedent title or a claim to property or even a semblance of claim. Those persons who are so related are included within the scope of family, parties to family settlement. It is very important that if an oral family arrangement is made, all the parties for members of the family must ascend to that family arrangement. If it is made in writing, it is necessary that all the members of the family must be signatories to the family arrangement. If some parties are not signatories, then the family arrangement is not good in the eyes of law. However, there is an exception to this. If for some reason, one or more members of the family are unable to be signatories to a written family arrangement, what they can do is they can give their assent to the family arrangement. And if their assent is recorded in the family arrangement deed, the family arrangement deed is wealth and good in the eyes of law. For this, we can refer to some rulings of the apex court in Taratnath v. Sushil Chandra Deh, 1996, Volume 4, SCC 697, and Sneha Gupta v. Devi Saru, 2009, Volume 6, SCC 194. Also, we can refer to Narendra Kante v. Anuradha Kante, 2010, Volume 2, SCC 77. The next subred for discussion is the existence of dispute and family arrangement. Now, it is very important for a family arrangement to be good in the eyes of law that there must exist a present family dispute or a possible future dispute. There must be possibility of a future dispute in the family for which to allay which to put it at rest, the family arrangement can be entered into. If there is no dispute present or possible in the future, then a family arrangement cannot be entered into. This is a very important distinction which we shall see later when we see it with similar concepts like partition and will. For this, we can see and refer to the judgments of the honorable apex court in Shambu Prasad Singh v. Phool Kumari, 1971, Volume 2, SCC 28, and Mathuri Pullai v. Mathuri Narsimhan, AIR 1966, SC 1836. What is the consideration for a family arrangement? The consideration is the expectation of the members of the family that such a settlement would establish or ensure the continuity of harmony in the family. This was let down by the honorable apex court in Ram Charan Das v. Girja Nandini, Devi, AIR 1966 Supreme Court, 323. The object of the family arrangement is to protect the members of the family from possible long-drawn litigation, which the members of the family may resort to if the matter is not resorted through a family arrangement deed, to prevent perpetual stripes which mark the unity and solidarity of the family. In this regard, reference may be made to a very important judgment of the apex court with regard to family arrangement deeds in Kali v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1976, Volume 3, SCC, 119. Reference may also be made to the cases of government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Krishna Veni, 2006, 7, SCC 365, Ravinder Kaur, Grewal v. Manjeet Kaur, 2020, Volume 9, SCC 706, and Ram Charan Das v. Girja Nandini, Devi, AIR 1966 Supreme Court, 323. The next subhead is requirement of Bonafides. Law doesn't require that there must be an equal distribution of property between the various members of the family through a family arrangement deed. What the law requires is that the distribution must be equitable and fair. If one of the members of the family relinquishes all his rights to a certain property without any justifiable reason whatsoever, and the rights are relinquished in favor of the other members of the family, such an arrangement deed may become invalid in the eyes of law because of lack of Bonafides. Because it is very unlikely and unusual that one person of a family without any justifiable reason would relinquish all his rights in the family in favor of other persons. But for some very special reasons recorded in the family arrangement deed if it is made in writing or if it is oral for justifiable reasons, properties may not be divided equally. That is okay. The distribution must be fair and equitable. In this regard, the evidence may be made to judgments in Badami v. Bali, 2012, Volume 11, SCC 574, Parvathama v. Venkata Sivamma, 2016, Volume 15, SCC 463, Dilip Kaur v. Ram Kishan, 2018, Volume 18, SCC 807. Now some important facts about family arrangement. Family arrangement is not a transfer of property. So therefore it doesn't require a conveyance. For this you may refer to Ganesh v. Ashok, 2011, Volume 15, SCC 417, and Tegh Bahadur Gujjil v. Datsingh Gujil, AAR 1966, Supreme Court 292. In a family arrangement what happens is the already antecedent title which exists in the various members of the family is made clear. One party is declared to be, for example, one party is declared to be the owner of the property, and the other members of the family relinquish all rights in respect of that property. Similarly, the other members get some property to which the former member relinquishes all their rights. Requirement of antecedent title. Now for a partition to be valid, there must be antecedent title amongst the various foresharers who are to effect the partition. This is also a requirement whereas for a family arrangement deed to be valid, there must be antecedent title in all the members of the family. But the Supreme Court has made this concept a bit more lucid, a bit more elastic. The Supreme Court has said that even if all the members don't possess antecedent title, antecedent title may be assumed. Provided the members have a claim in the property or a semblance of a claim. Even affection may be a ground for a semblance of a claim. For this proposition, you may refer to Sahu Madhodas versus Pandit Mukund Ram 1955, Volume 2 SCR 22, Tegh Bahadur Bhujal versus Datsingh Bhujal A.I.R 1966, Supreme Court 292. All that is necessary is that the parties must be related to each other. They must either have clear antecedent title or they must have a claim in the property or even a semblance of a claim would do. Whereas in cases of partition, a clear antecedent title is required. Otherwise, the partition may not be good in the eyes of law. In the case titled Government of Andhra Pradesh versus M. Krishnan Vinay 2006, Volume 7 SC 365, the Supreme Court has told that family arrangement is not confined only to people having legal title to the property. So a semblance of claim is also sufficient. The next question is whether family settlement of self-acquired property is possible. So if the property is clearly self-acquired one and the members of the family acknowledge that the property is self-acquired property for one of its members, then strict sense of the concept of family arrangement doesn't apply. For this, you may refer to Bhagawan Krishnan Gupta versus Prabha Gupta 2009, Volume 11, SCC 33, Sita Ram Bhama versus Ram Aptar Bhama 2018, Volume 15, SCC 130, and to Theri Santamal versus Vishwanathan 2018, Volume 3, SCC 117. Now what is the difference between a family arrangement and a partition? As I advocated to earlier, a partition is possible when the co-sharers of a property have clear antecedent title. Whereas this is not a requirement for strict compliance when it comes to a family arrangement. The apex court has said even if there is not a clear antecedent title, even a claim to the property or even a semblance of claim may be sufficient for a family arrangement to be valid. Next distinction is that for a family arrangement to be effectuated, it is necessary that there must be a present or future dispute, future possible dispute. Whereas this is not a requirement for a partition to be valid. Without any disharmony in the family, present or future, a partition may be effected, which may be absolutely good in the eyes of law. For this you may refer to Gumanna Shetty versus Nagavayamma A.I.R. 1967, Supreme Court 1595, Hiraji Tola Ji, Bhagawan versus Shakuntula, 1990, Volume 1, SCC 440, and to Lakshmi Ammal versus Chakravarti, 1999, Volume 1, SCC 235. Now what is the distinction between a will and a family arrangement? Will is a testamentary instrument whereas a family arrangement is a non-testamentary instrument. Will takes effect only on the death of the testator whereas a family arrangement takes effect on the date, if it is oral, on the date it is made and if it is in writing, the writing is executed. For a will it is not necessary that all the members of the family should ascend to the will whereas there cannot be a valid family arrangement unless all the family members ascend to it. For these propositions you may refer to MN Adhyamurthy versus MD Subraya Shetty 1972, Volume 4, SCC 1, Kalyani versus Narayanan, 1980, Supplementary SCC 298, and Namburi Basava Subramanyam versus Allapati Hayamavati 1996, Volume 9, SCC 388. There may be occasions when a single document in part takes the character of a will and partly it may take the character of a family arrangement. This is possible. So the mood point is that the nomenclature of the document is not a decisive factor. One will have to look into the contents of the document, what effect it is sought to produce and the surrounding circumstances to decipher whether a particular document is a will in Toto, a family arrangement in Toto or partly a will and partly a family arrangement. Under the Muslim law, the concept of family arrangement is not there. But one thing is there in Muslim law that a parent cannot transfer its title to a property. So even if a document is affected of the nature of a family arrangement, even then the rule of stopper may be pressed into service, although the concept of family arrangement is strictly not applicable. The apex court has held that family arrangements are governed by a special equity circulatory themselves and the courts must try to lean in favor of effecting family arrangements enforcing them and they should not be likely interfered with. For these propositions, we may refer to K.V. Narayanan versus K.V. Ranganathan, 1977 Vol. 1 SCC 244, K.K. Modi versus K.N. Modi, 1998 Vol. 3 SCC 573, Amteshwar Anand versus Virendra Mohan Singh, 2006 Vol. 1 SCC 148, Dalip Kaur versus Ram Kishan, 2018 Vol. 18 SCC 807, Kale versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1976 Vol. 3 SCC 119, family set arrangement and stopper. Sometimes it is possible that due to certain technicalities, a deed may not be regarded as a valid family arrangement deed. In such cases, if a party has taken benefit of the distribution of property made as per the deed, then although the doctrine of family arrangement is strictly not applicable, the doctrine of stopper may be placed into service and he would be stopped from stating otherwise. For these propositions, we may refer to S.Sanmugan Pillai versus K.Sanmugan Pillai, 1973 Vol. 2 SCC 312, Kale versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1976 Vol. 3 SCC 119, Shehemal versus Hassan Khani Ravthe, 2011 Vol. 9 SCC 223, and Ravinder Kaur Grewal versus Manjeet Kaur, 2020 Vol. 9 SCC 706. To sum up, there is no codified law for family arrangements. The concept has developed by judicial precedents. Family arrangement may be arrived at poorly. It need not be in writing. If it is in writing, two situations may arise. If the written document evidences an earlier oral family arrangement, it need not be registered, it need not be duly stumped. But if it doesn't evidence prior oral family arrangement, but the document itself effectuates a family arrangement, then the document need to be registered and it need to be duly stumped. Existence of a present or possible future dispute is a sign of going on for effecting a valid family arrangement. If there is no possibility in the future of a dispute, neither is there a present dispute. You cannot effectuate a valid family arrangement deed. The object of family arrangement is to preserve harmony in the family. It is necessary that all the parties must ascend to the family arrangement. If some of the parties don't ascend, then the arrangement is not valid in the eyes of law. And there is an exception. If the party not ascending by putting signatures, he can give us concern to the family arrangement, in which case the family arrangement would be valid in the eyes of law. The consideration in the family arrangement is the expectation that it will result in establishing or ensuring harmony in the family. It must be detected voluntarily. There must be no coercion of fraud. The distribution of property may not be equal, but it has to be fair and equitable. Both parties must be there. Intincident title must be there. Even if antecedent title is not there, there must be a claim to property or a semblance of a claim. This is all I have to say, Mr. Vikas. Thank you, Mr. Vikas. It was spot on. Could you just explain, since a lot of people, especially in India, would like to understand this. What you have summarized in English in the last 2-3 minutes, if it could be also summarized in Hindi, what are the requirements of the family settlement? There is no need for family arrangement. A family arrangement can be done in the same way as a MOPIC group. If a family arrangement is done in the same way as a MOPIC group, then two situations arise. If an oral family arrangement is written in the form of evidence, then it is not necessary to register and stamp the family arrangement. If an oral family arrangement is not made in the same way as a MOPIC group, then it is necessary to register and stamp the family arrangement. The family arrangement is done in the same way as a MOPIC group. If an oral family arrangement is not made in the same way as a MOPIC group, then it is necessary to register and stamp the family arrangement. It is necessary to register and stamp the family arrangement as a MOPIC group. If an oral family arrangement is not made in the same way as a MOPIC group, then it is not valid in the eyes of law. If an oral family arrangement is not made in the same way as a MOPIC group, then it is necessary to register and stamp the family arrangement in the same way as a MOPIC group. There is no need for a family arrangement that every family member has a title. If the antecedent does not have a title, then if there is a claim on some property, even if there is no legal claim, then the claim may not be valid, even if there is a claim on some property, then it is valid in the eyes of law. If there is a self-acquired property, then it cannot be a family arrangement. When the family members know that it is a self-acquired property, there are two main differences in the partition and family arrangement. There is no need for a partition to distribute, present or future. When there is a need for a family arrangement to distribute, then it can be a family arrangement. For partition, it is necessary to have a clear antecedent title in the members, co-sharers of the property. But there is no need for a strict family arrangement. Because the concept of antecedent title is made a little elastic for family arrangements. There is one difference in the will and family arrangement. There is no need for a will to have a present or future dispute. There is no need for a will to have a present or future dispute. And the choice of will can be made a will. The other difference is that there is not need for a will to have a present or future dispute. The other difference is that will affects the death of the teskater. Similarly, a family arrangement has a lot of influence. Even if a family arrangement is formed between the family member or other group, there is a lot of influence. Family arrangement can't be revoked. Once you enter the family arrangement, the parties and members of the family can't do a new family settlement after that. If the family arrangement is not properly valid due to some technicalities, then the structure of the stopper can be pressed and the parties can be denied by saying that it is in the family arrangement. If there are any questions, we can answer them. I have two questions in the chat box. I will read them on YouTube. The first question Can hereditary property be given to only one son despite having two sons? Yes. It can be given, but there must be a reason why it is not being given to the other two sons. The distribution must be due to justifiable reasons. Then it is possible that there is no hindrance. Yes. One family arrangement is in the form of an award under section 73 of an arbitration act. However, the conciliator states that it is not an award but merely a settlement agreement. Or does one enforce the above set mentioned agreement? Could you repeat the question once more? One family arrangement is in the form of an award under section 73 of an arbitration act. However, the conciliator states that it is not a settlement agreement. Or does one enforce the above mentioned agreement? The nomenclature of the document is not sufficient to decipher what it is actually. So the contents of the document, whether it is a memorandum of a family arrangement or the document affects the family arrangement will have to be seen. If it is a memorandum of family arrangement, then it can be enforced the requirement of registration and stamping. Otherwise, it would not be used under the bar under section 49 of the registration act. Next is, mini Matthews is stamp duty on property to be made? Yeah. If it is a memorandum of a family arrangement, there is no need of it being duly stamped. But if it is the document which affects the family arrangement for the first time, then it has to be duly stamped. As for the Indian stamp set, the stamp duties different in different parts of the country, the stamp duty payable on a partition deed is the stamp duty to be payable on a family arrangement deed. This is Chandrasekhar Rao kindly explained the distinction one again between a family arrangement and a family settlement. One and the same thing. And Rohit Sinha, could you please repeat the registration portion? When does it not require a registration? See, if the document which is called a family arrangement deed is a document which evidences an earlier oral family arrangement and family arrangement has taken place earlier, orally. The document subsequently prepared just acknowledges it as to what has happened earlier. Then the document doesn't require registration. But if there is no earlier oral family arrangement and for the first time the arrangement is made by the deed, then the deed requires registration and it has to be duly started. There is no requirement of it being made in writing in the first place. It can be made orally also. So we leave for the day today and thank you Shri Krishna. It was well articulated and nicely explained. And tomorrow, friends, we will be having a session keeping in view the concept of beyond law. It says perception and knowledge management. It is by Dr. K. Siddhata who has already mentored more than 1600 I.U.S. officers. So do stay connected with us tomorrow at 6 p.m. Thank you everyone. Stay safe. Stay best.