S.S Sodhi, J.:— The controversy here is with regard to a document titled “Ikrarnama” being exhibited and tendered in evidence. The objection to its admissibility as raised by the defendant and upheld by the trial Court being that it was a partition deed and thus require registration According to the plaintiff, on the other hand, it was a family settlement recording the terms what had already been agreed upon by the members of the family. The emphasis in this behalf being upon the fact that the parties to it were real brothers and sisters and in 1968 when it was drawn up the parants too were alive. Some land had, as per this document, come to their mother too.
2. It is well settled, as held in Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debi Singh Bhujil . AIR 1966 SC 292., that a family settlement is generally prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon, in order that there are no hazy notions about it in future and where it is a document which is no more than a memorandum of what had been agreed to between the parties, it does not require registration. Further, in Ram Charan Das v. Girja Nandini Devi . AIR 1966 SC 323., it was held that Courts give effect to a family settlement upon the broad and general ground that its object is to settle existing or future disputes regarding property amongst members of a family and that in this context the word ‘family’ is not to be understood in a narrow sense of being a group of person's whom the law recognises as having a right of succession or having a claim to a share in the disputed property. The consideration for a family settlement is the expectation that such a settlement will result in establishing or ensuring amity and goodwill amongst the relations.
3. Turning now to the “Ikrarnama” Itself, a reading of it leaves no manner of doubt that it recites and records what has already been decided upon between the parties and they being members of the family. Particular reference is here to be made to the recitals in it to the effect that possession of the shares has already been taken by the parties. This document thus clearly answers to the description of a family settlement and does not, therefore, require registration.
4. The impugned order of the trial Court cannot, therefore, be sustained and is accordingly hereby set aside with the direction to it to admit this document in evidence.
5. This revision petition is thus accepted with costs. Costs of this petition shall be costs in the suit. Counsel's fee Rs. 300/-.
R.M.S
Petition allowed.