2002 PLP 1419 (MLD)

(5) Whether ostensible sale rice Rs.60,000 was filed in good faith? OPD. (6) If issue No.5 is proved in negative, then what was the market value of suit land at the time of transaction? OP Parties. (7) Whether suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD. (8) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action? OPD (9) Whether the suit is barred under Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C.? OPD (10) Whether suit is hit by the principle of res judicata? OPD (11) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (12) Whether the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 offered the plaintiffs to purchase the property before selling it to defendant Nos.6? OPD (13) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their own words and conduct? OPD (14) Whether the suit is incorrectly valued for the purposes of court- fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is correct one? OPD (15) Relief. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 8‑11‑1994 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners. The appeal before the learned Additional District Judge met the same fate on 10‑7‑1995.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Additional District Judge. Lahore decided Issue No.1 only and that too was erroneous and gave no finding on other issues. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the alleged agreement dated 22‑2‑1986 was not enforceable under section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and defended the impugned judgments.

5. Where an arrangement had been arrived at between the members of the family that is designed to promote peace and goodwill amongst its members, this, by itself is a good consideration to support the transaction. Court will not scan too closely the quantum of consideration for the agreement in cases of family arrangement. An agreement by one of the party to a partition to take a smaller share can be sustained when that is done for the preservation of the family property or honour. In the case of Mst. Latif Jahan Begum v. Muhammad Nabi Khan (AIR 1932 Allahabad 174) D.B.) it was observed as under:‑‑ "The existence of a dispute or the assertion of a claim to any property is not essential for the creation of a family settlement. Where an arrangement has been arrived at between certain members of the family that is designed to promote peace and goodwill amongst certain of its members, this, by itself a good consideration to support the transaction. It is an established rule of law that in cases of family arrangement, Courts will not scan too closely the quantum of consideration." The contention of the learned counsel for respondents that the contract was not enforceable under section 21(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 is devoid of any force. There is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the agreements the term is very clear and enforceable at law. The learned Additional District Judge has not decided other issues whether the offer for sale was made to the plaintiffs and whether they refused to purchase the same for Rs.60,000? 6: In this view of the matter this appeal is allowed and the case is remanded to the Additional District Jude, Lahore for re‑writing of the judgment after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. H.B.T./E‑15/L Appeal allowed.