- (1.) The only question for determination in this appeal, by leave of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, is whether the transaction dated the 18th July 1934 is binding on the plaintiffs, respondents in this Court. It is not disputed that if that transaction characterized as a family arrangement and evidenced by Ex. D-1 is binding on the plaintiffs, the suit must fail, as held by the trial Court in its judgment date the 15th July 1943. If, on the other hand, the transaction is not binding on the plaintiffs, the suit must stand decreed, as held by the High Court by its judgment dated the 19th December 1946. The facts of this case may shortly be stated as follows:
(2.) Rangaswami Iyengar, who died in 1894, and Doraiswami Iyengar, who died in 1948 and who was the first defendant in the suit giving rise to this appeal were divided brothers. Rangaswami died leaving him surviving his widow Ranganyaki Ammal and his infant son Krishnaswami, who died in 1895-96 unmarried. Ranganayaki thus succeeded to her son's property as a limited owner. She held the property until her death on the 29th October 1933. She was survived by her daughter Padmasani, who was married to Rajagopala Iyengar (P. W. 1.) Padmasani died in July 1939 and was survived by her husband Rajagopal and two sons, who are the plaintiffs in the present action (respondents in this Court). Padmasani had two daughters also.
(3.) In the meantime, the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, II of 1929 (which will be referred to hereinafter as "the Act") was passed by the Indian Legislature. It came into force on the 21st February 1929. As a result of this legislation, a son's daughter, daughter's daughter sister and sister's son became entitled to succeed to the property of a Hindu male governed by the Mitakshara School, not held in coparcenary and not disposed of by will. All those specified heirs ranked in order of succession next after the father's father. At the time of Ranganayaki's death in October 1933 there was a diversity of judicial opinion in the different High Courts in India on the question whether the Act would apply to the property of a propositus who had died before the Act came into force. So far as the opinion of the Madras High Court which governed the case in hand was concerned, a Division Bench of that Court had held in the case of - 'Krishna Chettiar v. Manikkammal' AIR 1934 Mad 138 (A) that the Act did not apply to cases of Hindu males who had died intestate before the Act came into force. This decision was given on the 19th October 1933, that is to say, just ten days before the death of Ranganayaki. Taking advantage of this ruling of the Madras High Court, which differed from some other High Courts on the interpretation of the Act. Doraiswami, who was the uncle of the propositus Krishnaswami took possession of his property soon after Renganayaki's death. He appears to have taken legal advice on the question whether he or Padmasani, as the sister of the propositus, would have a preferential claim to the inheritance. He was advised, on the strength of the decision aforesaid of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, that he had a preferential claim. Naturally, Padmasani's husband Rajagopal was also moving in the matter and taking legal advice. He approached his brother's son Krishnaswami, an advocate practicing at Kumbakonam, who was working as a junior to a well known lawyer, Rao Bahadur N. Thiruvengadatha Iyengar, who appears to have been a very prominent citizen of the district, besides being a leading lawyer of the place. The advocate Krishnaswami aforesaid was related to his senior as the former had married the latter's brother's daughter. Rao Bahadur Thiruvengadatha Iyengar had an elder brother named N. Srinivasa Iyengar (D.W. I.) , who appears to have been a prominent and influential inhabitant of the locality. Finding that Doraiswami aforesaid had taken possession of the property, Padmasani and her husband, who were rather in straitened circumstances, consulted the lawyers of Madras as to the legal position whether Padmasani, as the propositus' sister, could not claim the benefit of the Act in preference of the uncle Doraiswami. They were advised that as a result of the decision of the Madras High Court supra, the uncle had a better right but that in any case the legal position was not free from doubt and difficulty and called for a settlement of the dispute out of Court. On that advice Rajagopal on behalf of his wife Padmasani, with the help of advocate Krishnaswami aforesaid, approached N. Srinivasa Iyengar (D.W.I.) to intervene in the dispute between the relations and to bring about the amicable settlement; otherwise they would have to go to court if the negotiations for a compromise failed. Doraiswami was sent for by D. W. I. and was told that Padmasani would have to go to court if the parties to the dispute did not settle it out of Court. Doraiswami claimed that he was in rightful possession of the property of the propositus on the basis of the High Court's judgment. After weighing the pros and cons Doraiswami agreed to the suggestion of N. Srinivasa Iyengar to share the property with Padmasani and her children. Hence towards the end of November 1933 Doraiswami agreed to give up half of the property for the benefit of Padmasani and her children and left the drafting of the document to the advocate Tiruvengadatha Iyengar. In order to pin him down to his promise, the said lawyer made a draft (Ex. P-1) which was signed by Doraiswami and was left in the custody of N. Srinivasa Iyengar, who was also put in charge of the moiety of the property proposed to be given away to Padmasani and her children. As Ranganayaki had made certain alienations which were said to be not binding of the reversioners, it was decided that the draft of the transaction between the parties would be finalized after recovering by negotiations, if possible, those properties which had been alienated by Ranganayaki. One or those alienees was Natesan Iyer, an advocate, who realizing his position recovered a portion of the alienated property to Doraiswami. These transactions also were entered into with the full cognizance and co-operation of Rajagopal, acting on behalf of his wife Padmasani, and their relation and lawyer Krishnaswami Iyengar. Those transactions were completed by January 1934.;