Syed Mohammad Raza v. Abbas Bandi Bibi
AIR 1932 PC 158 — Power of alienation under a family arrangement explained in clear, classroom-style English.
```
Quick Summary
This Privy Council case confirms a simple rule: when family members settle a dispute and agree that property will stay within the family, a limited “no sale to outsiders” condition can be valid. Here, Sughra Bibi got property under a compromise tied to that condition. Later sales and mortgages to strangers could not defeat the agreed term.
- Family arrangement + partial restraint = enforceable.
- Not a total ban—only bars transfers to strangers.
- Purpose: protect family peace and the settlement bargain.
Issues
Main Exam Issue: Was Sughra Bibi’s power to alienate (sell/mortgage) the property valid and enforceable in spite of the compromise condition?
Rules
- If a person takes property under a family arrangement with a clear condition that it must not be alienated to outsiders, that partial restraint is not repugnant to law.
- Courts give weight to settlement terms that end family disputes and preserve harmony.
Facts (Timeline)
Dispute: Sughra Bibi sued her cousin Afzal Husain for a half share in certain Oudh properties entered in his name after the post-Mutiny settlement.
Compromise: Case ended in a compromise. It included a plan for their marriage in the next month and conditions about the property, notably a bar against alienation to strangers.
Marriage & Deaths: Afzal married Sughra; he died childless in 1872. His first wife, Fatima Begum, had predeceased him in 1871.
Transfers by Sughra: Sughra took possession of her share but sold or mortgaged all of it before her death. The transferees stayed in possession for almost 12 years after she died.
Claim by Family: The respondent sued, asserting that under the compromise Sughra had only a life interest without power to alienate outside the family; on her death the share passed to her heirs within the family. Respondent claimed two-thirds via Zainab Bibi (sister of Afzal).
Lower Court View: The trial judge treated the restraint on alienation as invalid.
Appeal: The Chief Court took the opposite view and upheld the restriction. The Privy Council agreed with this approach.
Arguments
Appellant (Through Sughra’s alienations)
- Restraint on alienation is generally void; sales/mortgages should stand.
- Transferees were in long, peaceful possession after her death.
Respondent (Family Heirs)
- Compromise gave only a life interest or, at least, a share with a no outsider condition.
- On Sughra’s death, the share re-vested within the family; transfers to strangers were contrary to the bargain.
Judgment
The court upheld the compromise condition. Where a person accepts property under a family arrangement on the clear agreement that it shall not be alienated outside the family, those claiming through a breach cannot rely on abstract notions like “justice, equity, and good conscience” to defeat the agreement. The restraint here was partial, not absolute, and therefore valid.
Ratio Decidendi
A restraint against alienation to strangers imposed by a family settlement is a reasonable and enforceable partial restraint. Such a term is not repugnant to law because it is limited and serves the settlement’s purpose—peace within the family and finality of compromise.
Why It Matters
- Clarifies the line between void absolute restraints and valid partial restraints.
- Protects family settlements that end long-running disputes.
- Reinforces that courts respect the parties’ bargain in compromises.
Key Takeaways
- Partial restraint (no outsiders) under a family arrangement is valid.
- Compromise terms are binding and receive judicial respect.
- Transferees through breach cannot overcome the agreed condition.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “FAM-NO-OUT” — FAmily settlement, Must respect, NO OUTsiders.
- Step 1: Family source? If property comes via family compromise, check the terms.
- Step 2: Type of restraint? Outsiders only = partial (likely valid).
- Step 3: Breach route? Buyers through breach cannot trump the bargain.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Did Sughra Bibi have the power to alienate despite the “no outsiders” condition?
Rule
Partial restraint from a family arrangement (no sale to strangers) is not repugnant.
Application
Since Sughra took under that term, her sales/mortgages to outsiders could not stand against the family claim.
Conclusion
The restriction was valid; family rights prevailed over transfers to strangers.
Glossary
- Alienation
- Transfer of property (sale, mortgage, gift, etc.).
- Partial Restraint
- A limited restriction—here, no transfer to outsiders, not a total ban.
- Family Arrangement
- A settlement among family members to end or prevent disputes.
Student FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now