"Family arrangements are governed by a special equitable principles peculiar to themselves". Comment in light of Kale v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, AIR 1976 SC 807 and elucidate the essentials for a family settlement

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, although they have not been meant as a compromise, but have proceeded from an error of all parties, originating in mistake or ignorance of fact as to what their rights actually are, or of the points on which their rights actually depend. In Kale v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, AIR 1976 SC 807 the Supreme Court has laid down the following propositions to put the binding effect and the essentials of a family settlement in a concretised form: The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family. The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence. The family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary. It is well-settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the Court for making necessary mutation. In such a case, the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and, therefore, does not fall within the mischief of Section 17 (2) (sic) (Section 17 (1) (b)) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable. The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest or even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties of the settlement has no title but, under the arrangement, the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the Courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same. Even in bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable, the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement. The fifth proposition quoted above clearly contemplates that even if a party to the settlement had no title but, under the arrangement, the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the Courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same. [ CIT v. R. Ponnammal, (1987) 164 ITR 706 (Mad) ]. Family Arrangement when enforceable? No doubt, a family arrangement, which is for the benefit of the family generally, can be enforced in a court of law. But before the court would do so, it must be shown that there was an occasion for effecting a family arrangement and that it was acted upon. [ Lakshmi Perumallu v. Krishnavenamma, AIR 1965 SC 825: 1965 (1) SCR 261 ].