2) Family Memorandum of Arrangement, even if not registered as admissible evidence This type of decentralization is widely persecuted by Sunni Islam. This method resembles the doctrine of survival; the property is divided equally among all the heirs of the deceased. The assets allocated on a per capita basis do not distinguish between branches of the family. Believe me, these cases are going to put enormous pressure on the current owner, the previous owner and your family member, and then everyone will come and settle this matter in your favor. Look for your share of every property sold by all, and then everyone will line up to sort that out. For now, they think they are the only ones who can hurt you and that you are toothless and harmless, so they try to sabotage you. The moment you sue them to take an interest in their goods sold, they will realize that they can now lose their previous and current transactions and that they will also end up in prison, since they sold it on the basis of a family agreement that is now declared fraud. Fraud is a misdemeanor under Section 420 IPC and 07 years in prison is the penalty for fraud in law. Your family members will realize how much trouble they are when they come after you simply because you didn`t sell the property, but kept it with you. The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment of 21.01.1976 in Kale and Ors. v.
Deputy Director of Consolidation and Employment, 1976 (3) SCC 119 found that a document which has the character of an early family memorandum of understanding and which is submitted to the Court for information on the transfer of names is not mandatory and can therefore be used as evidence of the family agreement and is final and binding on the parties. The above view of the Supreme Court has also been clearly expressed and skillfully set out in a long series of judgments of the Supreme Court, as well as the Council of Privileges and the High Courts. The courts have adopted a liberal and broad view of the validity of a family comparison and have always tried to maintain and maintain it. The Commission considers that the appropriate amendment proposal in the Explanatory Note to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is absolutely necessary in the public interest. Therefore, before the transaction, there should be some evidence of claims, counter-rights or disputes or disputes between family members on this issue, which justify a family agreement. . . .