Is a semblance of a claim sufficient for a family member to enter into a family arrangement?

Paragraph 28As regards the validity of Ex-A.1, the claim of the plaintiff - Arumugam as stated above is that he along with his brother / first defendant - Nagaraj jointly contributed and constructed houses in the suit properties demolishing the old superstructures thereon. The judicial admissions made in Exs-A.35 to 39 would clearly show that Ex-A.1 has been acted upon and the plaintiff and the defendants are enjoying their respective portions. Further, the documents in Ex-A.2 to Ex-A.32, which are House Tax Receipts, Water Tax Receipts, Electricity Board Receipts, etc., though they are issued after the Suit, they satisfactorily prove the separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares in the suit properties by the parties. Semblance of claim is sufficient to enter into a agreement/arrangement. The plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers, they are not third parties. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to Kale's Case [cited supra], whereof relevant portion reads thus: "9. Before dealing with the respective contentions put forward by the parties, we would like to discuss in general the effect and value of family arrangements entered into between the parties with a view to resolving disputes once for all. By virtue of a family settlement or arrangement members of a family descending from a common ancestor or a near relation seek to sink their differences and disputes, settle and resolve their conflicting claims or disputed titles once for all in order to buy peace of mind and bring about complete harmony and goodwill in the family. The family arrangements are governed by a special equity peculiar to themselves and would be enforced if honestly made. In this connection, Kerr in his valuable treatise Kerr on Fraud at p. 364 makes the following pertinent observations regarding the nature of the family arrangement which may be extracted thus: