JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - Plaintiff has filed this second appeal against the reversing judgment of Sri C.S. Misra, subordinate judge of Bargarh, dated the 20th November, 1964, passed in Title Appeal No. 59/656 of 1963, dismissing the suit. 2. The Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the deed of gift executed by Mst. Chhai, mother of Defendant-1, in favour of the latter on 20.5.1950, is not binding upon the Plaintiff and is inoperative and also claims the relief of recovery of possession of the land with the house thereon which is the subject-matter of the deed of gift. 3. It is necessary to set out the genealogy of the family from with the relationship of the parties will be clear. Arjun Khedu Bala Bhara Chhai Narasi Pira Ranjit (Pltff.) Usha-D-1 husband Nisamani (D-2) According to the Plaintiff the suit-land along with other properties originally belonged to Arjun and after his death there was a partition between Khedu and Bala. The suit-land and the house described in schedule Ka and Kha were allotted to Khedu in that partition who in consequence remained in separate possession thereof. Upon the death of Khedu, Mst. Chhai succeeded him, and later on, she executed a registered deed of gift dated 20-5-1950 in favour of Defendant-1 in respect of the entire suit properties. In pursuance of this gift-deed, Defendant possessed the same. Chhai, however, died in 1952. The Plaintiff, it is further contended, is the nearest reversioner of Khedu and after the death of Chhai succussion devolved on the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is entitled to succeed to the suit-properties. The deed of gift will not affect his right of succession. He alleged that after the death of Chhai, Defendant-1 with the help of some gentlemen of the village coerced from him a signature on a blank stamp paper saying that the villagers will settle the dispute between him and Defendant-1. 4. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement. The genealogy is admitted. They say that Defendant-1 acquired a valid title to the suit-property on the footing of the deed of gift. 4. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement. The genealogy is admitted. They say that Defendant-1 acquired a valid title to the suit-property on the footing of the deed of gift. In 1957, the Plaintiff created a dispute by preferring a false claim to the suit-land and on the intervention of some respectable gentlemen of the village a settlement was arrived at between the Plaintiff and Defendant-1 and each of the disputing parties, viz., the Plaintiff and Defendant-1 executed a document in favour of the other on 19-10-1957, containing the terms of the settlement of their rival claims. This document is merely a memorandum of terms of such settlement. This settlement was valid and voluntarily made. There is also a plea of estoppel raised: the Plaintiff being a party to the settlement and having taken benefit under it and in token of voluntary acceptance of the same, having put his signature to the memorandum of the terms of such settlement, is estopped from disputing its validity. In 1958, despite the settlement, the plain tiff trespassed upon the suit-land. There was a criminal case which ended in conviction of the Plaintiff. This was followed by a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the suit-land which terminated in favour of the Defendants. This has led the Plaintiff to file the present suit. 5. The trial Court held that the deed of gift by Chhai who was a limited owner was not valid beyond her lifetime and that the Plaintiff was beyond doubt the next reversioner of late Khedu and as such, was entitled to succeed to the suit-property. He also held that ext. F the deed of family settlement has been executed by the Plaintiff and is not vitiated by fraud, but that document is inadmissible in evidence being compulsorily registrable, but not registered. He further said that the plea of estoppel cannot be sustained. In the end, he decreed the suit. 6. The Defendants took the matter in appeal and succeeded. They did not challenge, in the first appellate Court nor do they do so here, that the Plaintiff was the next reversioner of Khedu and that the deed of gift will not be binding upon the Plaintiff beyond the lifetime of chhai. The only point urged there was that ext. F is a deed of family settlement and accordingly did not require registration. The only point urged there was that ext. F is a deed of family settlement and accordingly did not require registration. Further, they invoked the doctrine of ratification against the Plaintiff. It was said that the Plaintiff subsequently entered into a family arrangement with Defendant No. 1 under which he not only took some benefit but also ratified the transaction under the deed of gift (ext. A), with full knowledge of his right by assenting to it. On both these grounds the Plaintiff was said to be precluded from challenging the title of the Defendants and, as such, the present suit was bound to fail. 7. Basing on the admission of the Plaintiff and some other evidence on record, the lower appellate Court came to a conclusion that execution of ext. F by the Plaintiff was voluntary and that no fraud was played upon him to obtain his signature on Mutt document. It is the Defendants' case which is fully supported by evidence that the family settlement was engrossed on two stamp papers, one purchased by the Plaintiff and the other purchased by the Defendant No. 1. Plaintiff executed one in favour of Defendant No. 1 acknowledging the latter's title to some properties received by her under the deed of gift (ext. A) and ratifying the gift with full knowledge of his rights. This document has been produced by Defendants and is ext. F. Like wise, Defendant No. 1 executed the second stamp paper in favour of the Plaintiff acknowledging Plaintiff's title to Borne of the properties covered by the gift-deed. The Plaintiff has not produced this document before the Court though the same is in his custody. These two deeds form one transaction and constitute the family settlement. In these circumstances, the learned lower appellate Court found that the Plaintiff voluntarily executed ext. F with full knowledge of his right and by assenting to the transaction of gift, and that the allegation of fraud by the Plaintiff is untrue. After reaching these findings, and relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in T.V.R. Subbu Chetty's Family Charities v. M. Raghava Mudaliar and Ors. F with full knowledge of his right and by assenting to the transaction of gift, and that the allegation of fraud by the Plaintiff is untrue. After reaching these findings, and relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in T.V.R. Subbu Chetty's Family Charities v. M. Raghava Mudaliar and Ors. 1961 S.C.D. 517, the appeal Court below applied the doctrine of election and ratification to the facts of the present case and concluded that the deed of gift in favour of Defendant-1 being a transaction which is not void, but voidable at the instance of the next reversioner and the latter instead of avoiding it having ratified the same would be bound thereby. The family settlement evidenced by ext. F amply establishes the Plaintiff's act of ratification of the gift of Chhai in favour of Defendant-1 and his election to abide by it. He, thereby, acknowledged the title of Defendant-1 to the properties left by Khedu which is antecedent to the settlement, ext. F. He further held since the Plaintiff has ratified the transaction of gift in favour of Defendant-1 and has assented to it and has also taken the benefit under ext. F, he is estopped from disputing either the family settlement or the gift and the title of Defendant No. 1 derived thereunder. 8. The only point raised here is that ext. F is not a deed of family settlement. Even if it is one, it purporting to make a conveyance of properties valued at more than one hundred rupees, is compulsorily registrable, and in absence of registration, ext. F is inadmissible in evidence. There is no doubt that if this point has substance, the Plaintiff is bound to succeed. 9. To judge the correctness or other vise of the Appellant's contention, it is necessary to find out the essentials of a family settlement, its object, consideration for such a settlement, persons who would constitute members of a family for the purpose of family settlement, what are the incidents of a binding family settlement and circumstances under which a family settlement would require to be registered. The doctrine of family settlement has undergone judicial review in all its facts. A few decisions need be noticed in this connection. 10. The first case I would like to refer is the case of Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debi Singh Bhujil AIR 1959 Assam 109. The doctrine of family settlement has undergone judicial review in all its facts. A few decisions need be noticed in this connection. 10. The first case I would like to refer is the case of Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debi Singh Bhujil AIR 1959 Assam 109. The relevant passages are as follows: (a) A family arrangement is an agreement between members of the same family intended to be generally and reasonably for the benefit of the family, (a) either by compromising doubtful or disputed rights or by preserving the family property, (b) or the peace and security of the family by avoiding litigation, (c) or by saving its honours. The word 'family' has been given extensive meaning. Any member of the family may be a party to a family arrangement and thus arrangement between parent and children both illegitimate and legitimate uncles and nephews, have all been supported as family arrangements. A compromise or family arrangement is based on the assumption that there is an antecedent title of some sort in the parties and the agreement acknowledges and defines what that title is, each party relinquishing all claims to property other than that falling to his share and recognizing the right of the others, as they bad previously asserted it, to the portions allotted to them respectively. It is due to this fundamental aspect of the family arrangement that no conveyance is required to create title in favour of the members of the family. But this principle can be carried further and the Courts lean so much in favour of the family arrangements which brings about harmony in a family, does justice to its various members and avoids in anticipation future disputes which might ruin them all that they have no hesitation in taking the next step and upholding an arrangement under which one set of members abandon all claim to all title and interest in all the properties in dispute and acknowledge that the sole and absolute title to all the properties resides in only one of their number and are content to take such properties as are assigned to their shares as gifts pure and simple from him or as a conveyance for consideration when consideration is present. x x x x (d) A document called a family arrangement as such is not immune from registration. x x x x (d) A document called a family arrangement as such is not immune from registration. But it will be a question of fact to be determined in each case primarily on the interpretation of the document; and the surrounding circumstances whether the document in question itself creates title or it only acknowledges the antecedent title to the property. This case was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debi Singh Bhujil and Ors. 1966 S.C.D 94. Raghubir Dayal, J. who delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court said that: Family arrangement as such can be arrived at orally and its terms may be recorded in writing as memorandum of what had been agreed upon between the parties. The memorandum need not be prepared for the purpose of being used as a document on which future title of the parties be founded. It is usually prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon so that there may be no hazy notions about it in future. If was further held that where the document containing the family arrangement is not the basis of the rights of the parties, it would not require compulsory registration and can serve the purpose of proof of evidence of what had been decided between the parties. 11. The next case to be noticed is the case of Ram Charan Das Vs. Girjanandini Devi and Others. This case speaks of the object of the family settlement, the' sense in which the "family" is to be understood, consideration of family settlement and what it normally means. The relevant passages from the judgment are quoted herein below: (a) 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 among members of a family. In this context the word 'family' is not to be understood in a narrow sense of being a group of persons whom the law recognizes 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. That consideration having passed by each of the disputants the settlement consisting of recognition of the right asserted by each other cannot be impeached thereafter. 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. That consideration having passed by each of the disputants the settlement consisting of recognition of the right asserted by each other cannot be impeached thereafter. (b) The transaction of a family settlement entered into by the parties who are members of a family bona fide to put an end to the dispute among themselves, is not a transfer. It is not also the creation of an interest. For, in a family settlement each party takes a share in the property by virtue of the independent title which is admitted to that extent by the other parties. Every party who takes benefit under it need not necessarily be shown to have under the law, a claim to a share in the property. All that is necessary to show is that the parties are related to each other in some way and have a possible claim to the property or a claim or even a semblance of a claim on some other ground, as, say, affection. 12. In the case of Sahu Madho Das and Others Vs. Mukand Ram and Another and another reported in it is said: It is well-settled that a compromise or family arrangement is based on the assumption that there is an antecedent title of some sort in the parties and the agreement acknowledges and defines what that title is, each party relinquishing all claims to property other than that falling to his share and recognizing the right of the others, as they had previously asserted it, to the portions allotted to them respectively. That explains why no conveyance is required in these cases to pass the title from the one in whom it resides to the person receiving it under the family arrangement. It is assumed that the title claimed by the person receiving the property under the arrangement had always resided in him or her as far as the property falling to his or her share is concerned and therefore no conveyance is necessary. In such an event the family arrangement need not be reduced to writing and even if it is, it need not be registered. In such an event the family arrangement need not be reduced to writing and even if it is, it need not be registered. But if the family settlement is one under which a person having an absolute title to property transfers his right, title and interest in some items of that property to other., it would require compliance of formalities of law in regard to transaction of sale. If properties so transferred under the family settlement is valued at Rs. 100/- or more, it would be valid and admissible in evidence only if registered. But if the parties to the family settlement have set up competing titles and disputes are resolved by composition, there is no question of one deriving title from the other, it will be assumed that title to the property had always resided in the person to whom it was allotted under the family settlement. To this effect is the decision reported in Y. Venkataraju v. Y. Vedukondulu AIR 1958 Andh. Pra. 147. 13. The next case to be noticed in this connection is the case of Ponnammal v. Srinivassrangam AIR 1956 S.C. 162 . It is held in this case that the validity of a family settlement of disputed rights depends on the facts existing at the time of such settlement. Subsequent judicial adjudication that rights of parties are different from what was supposed or that one party had nothing to give up completely irrelevant. 14. Potti Lakshmi Perumallu Vs. Potti Krishnavenamma is another case on the point. It lays down that before a family arrangement can be enforced it must be shown that there was an occasion for effecting a family arrangement and that it was acted upon. 15. In a decision of this Court reported in Narayan Sahu v. Balu Sahu 29 (1963) C.L.T. 447, the same principle has been reiterated, viz., that family settlement is a bona fide one and has been acted upon and that the consideration for such a settlement is preservation of family property, of peace and honour of the family or avoidance of litigation. 16. The Supreme Court in the case reported Sahu Madho Das and Others Vs. Mukand Ram and Another already noticed, has said that long course of dealings between the parties and conduct of various members of the family are relevant factors for consideration to judge the existence of a family settlement. 17. 16. The Supreme Court in the case reported Sahu Madho Das and Others Vs. Mukand Ram and Another already noticed, has said that long course of dealings between the parties and conduct of various members of the family are relevant factors for consideration to judge the existence of a family settlement. 17. It is now to be seen how far the facts proved and found are in accord with the aforesaid legal principles caned from decided cases so as to lend to a conclusion that there is a family settlement which is binding on the Plaintiff and the ext. F is not compulsorily registrable and as such admissible in evidence. The genealogy clearly shows that Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are related and as such, are members of a family. It is also quite clear that both the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 were claiming competing title to the suit-properties. Defendant no 1 claimed under the deed of gift and was in possession of the suit-properties. Her claim was more than a possible claim or even a semblance of a claim. By the time of suit, Hindu Succession Act had already been enacted and Section 14 thereof ostensibly gave greater strength to her claim by reason of her Khas possession. The Plaintiff was undoubtedly the next reversioner and as such had an apparent claim to the property. The dispute therefore, was bona fide. 18. Ext. F is a memorandum of family settlement. Evidence has been led by Defendants, which has not been challenged in cross-examination that there was a Punchayati where disputes were settled and thereafter two stamps were purchased, one by the Plaintiff and the other by the Defendants on which terms of settlement were scribed. Thus, this document, ext. F, is not the basis of the rights of the parties, but it is just a memorandum for the purpose of being used as a proof of what had been settled between the parties. This document evidencing the transaction of family settlement does not bring about any transfer of property or create an interest in property. As such, it is beyond the purview of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, and not compulsorily registrable. 19. The recitals of ext. F also indicate that it is not a document under which title to property is created. As such, it is beyond the purview of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, and not compulsorily registrable. 19. The recitals of ext. F also indicate that it is not a document under which title to property is created. This stamp-paper was purchased by the Plaintiff from the stamp vendor and the recitals thereon are the statements of the Plaintiff. The recital is clear that there was a family settlement prior to execution of this document (ext. F) and makes a definite reference to competing claims of the parties. In pursuance to this settlement the Plaintiff purchased the stamp paper and executed ext. F. Similarly Defendant No. 1 executed another document in favour of the Plaintiff which he has held back. These acts show that there was an occasion for family settlement which was ultimately reached and Acted upon. 20. There is no gainsaying the fact that the object of the family settlement was to bring peace and harmony between parties and to prevent them launching into ruinous litigation. 21. Thus, there is no doubt the transaction evidenced by ext. F is a family settlement and is not compulsorily registrable. 22. It is alternatively argued by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that even assuming that ext. F can be construed as a deed of transfer, there being no evidence of the value of the properties transferred thereunder being of one hundred rupees or more, it is not compulsorily registrable. In reply to this, the learned Counsel for the Appellant invites my attention to the deed of gift where properties are valued at Rs. 500/- and to the plaint which is equally valued and argues that ext. F must necessarily bear the same valuation. I do not think this argument to be correct because ext. F does not convey all the properties covered by gift deed or in suit. It conveys, if at all, a portion of it and there is nothing on record to indicate the value of that portion. So on this ground also ext. F on the assumption that it creates interest or conveys title, cannot be held to be compulsorily registrable. 23. The plea of estoppel which found favour with the lower appellate Court was not canvassed here by either party. So on this ground also ext. F on the assumption that it creates interest or conveys title, cannot be held to be compulsorily registrable. 23. The plea of estoppel which found favour with the lower appellate Court was not canvassed here by either party. Hence it is unnecessary to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the lower appellate Court on the point, since the appeal is bound to fail on other points already discussed. In the result., the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Final Result : Dismissed