JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against judgment and decree dated July 29, 1981 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, dismissing appeal No. 144 of 1979/ Agra confirming judgment and decree dated February 22, 1979 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class district Agra, S.D.O. Fatehabad, district Agra, dismissing plaintiff's suit for division of half share in the disputed land. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for division of half share in the disputed land alleging it to be ancestral tenancy of the parties form the time of their grand-father; that plaintiff Ram singh and defendant Mohar Singh are real brother. 3. The defendant Mohar Singh contested the suit with the allegation that the disputed land was given to the defendant in family settlement arrived at about 40 years ago and that the land of village Rohta which was acquired from joint fund of the parties from the income of the disputed land was given to the plaintiff and since then he had been in exclusive possession over the disputed land and Ram Singh was in possession over the land of village Rohata where a house was also built from joint family fund fro Ram Singh; that there was litigation between the parties and family settlement was reduced to writing on July 27, 1974; that his possession had been adverse to the plaintiff; that the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff is entitled to no relief. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. It has been argued that 40 to 46 years ago the property of village Rohta was not in existence therefore, no family settlement about it could have been made; that the plaintiff had denied execution of the alleged family settlement and has denied his Signature on it; that the alleged family settlement deed being unregistered is not admissible and no surrender, relinquishment or transfer was permissible; that a family settlement of more than 40 years ago from existing property was not legal, that there is no evidence that property of village Rohta was acquired by nucleus of joint fund for which no issues were framed; that compromise for varying the share is not binding. Reliance has been placed on 1981 A.W.C. page 187, 1976 R.D. Vol. Reliance has been placed on 1981 A.W.C. page 187, 1976 R.D. Vol. II page 226, 1981 R.D. page 212 (H.C.), 1977 R.D. page 196, 1976 R.D. page 217, 1972 R.D. page 342, 1971 R.D. page 431, 1971 R.D. page 485, 1982 A.W.C. page 669. 6. It has been argued in reply that the concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below that by family settlement the disputed land was given to the share of defendant-respondent should not be interfered with; that family settlement is legal and does not require registration and the plaintiff is estopped from challenging it. Reliance has been placed on 1952 A.W.R. page 77, 1962 R.D. page 224, 1953 R.D. page 50, A.I.R. 1961 (S.C.) page 323, A.I.R. 1950 (Allahabad) page 700, 1939 A.W.R. page 106 Revenue. 7. It has been held in Ram Charan Das v. Girja Nandini Devi and others, A.I.R. 1966 (S.C.) 323 that (i) 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 amongst themselves, is not a transfer; (ii) that it is not also the creation of an interest. For in a family settlement party takes such share in the property by virtue of the independent title which is admitted to that extent by other party; (iii) 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; (iv) 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. 8. In Jokhan v. Ram Deo, A.I.R. 1967 (Alld.) 212 one of the points involved was whether the compromise amounted to a transfer of interest of a sirdar or was as such involved. A reference was made to the law down in Ram Charan Das v. Girja Nandi Devi and others (supra). It was held that in determining whether it was a transfer which the parties really intended of some of the plots and they resorted to the device of giving a false appearance to the transaction in order to circumvent the law and statutory prohibition against transfer. It was held that in determining whether it was a transfer which the parties really intended of some of the plots and they resorted to the device of giving a false appearance to the transaction in order to circumvent the law and statutory prohibition against transfer. If such was the case the compromise was a camouflage it cannot be regarded as transfer entered into by the parties bona fide for the purpose of putting an end to the dispute amount the family members. But otherwise it cannot be treated as transfer merely on the basis of an investigation of the antecedents of the parties. 9. Oral family arrangement is possible and it requires no registration as has been held in A.I.R. 1982 (Alld.) page 376, A.I.R. 1929 (P.C.) page 116, A.I.R. 1943 (P.C.) page 83. 10. If family settlement is proved and remedy lies in civil court for cancellation of family settlement. Reliance can be placed on A.I.R. 1968 (S.C.) page 856, A.I.R. 1973 page 2451 and 1963 R.D. page 15. 11. Finding of family settlement is a family of fact. See A.I.R. 1974 Alld. page 175. 12. In the present case both the courts below held the document of family settlement dated July 27, 1974 to be valid, proved by defendant Mohar Singh D.W. 1 and two marginal witnesses Subedar Singh and Mehtab Singh and the scribe Manmohan Singh D.W. 2 to D.W. 4 who have specifically stated that it appears that the signature of both the parties and Ram Singh had signed it in their presence. So the mere denial by plaintiff that he had not put his signature over it was rightly not believed by the courts below and they rightly came to a conclusion that this family settlement was agreed by both the parties who had signed it in their presence. It being a finding of fact cannot be interfered with. 13. It is in evidence on record that the parties who are real brothers and are of one family were litigating about the disputed land and the plaintiff who at first denied that litigation, had to admit that he had filed division suit which was dismissed due to his illness. So there was a real dispute between the parties about the disputed land. Therefore, family settlement arrived at orally about 40 years ago was reduced to writing per Exe. So there was a real dispute between the parties about the disputed land. Therefore, family settlement arrived at orally about 40 years ago was reduced to writing per Exe. Kha-1 which requires no registration and was admissible in evidence. 14. The plaintiff could not prove acquisition of property of village Rohata to have been solely acquired by him with his self-earned income and the defendant proved that the property of village Rohata was acquired by joint family fund. 15. It has also been proved that the family settlement was voluntary and was for ending litigation between the parties and it was not a case of transfer of Sirdari right or relinquishment of right of any party but was a valid family settlement for ending dispute between the parties who are closely related being real brothers and it was entered into bona fide and the claim of the defendant was admitted for exclusive ownership and possession over the disputed land and the defendant had admitted the claim of the plaintiff for exclusive possession and ownership over the land of village Rohta, therefore, the plaintiff was estopped from denying those family settlements as he had also reaped benefit by those family settlement. Therefore, both the courts below came to to correct finding of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence because the plaintiff could not examine even one single witness in support of his claim from the village of Rohta except examining himself and examining only the Lekhpal of village Rohta who had filed Khasra and Khatauni of village Rohta was recorded exclusively in the name of the plaintiff and that Lekhpal was posted in that village only since one year when he gave his statement and on the other hand the statement of the defendant was supported by the two other witness D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 of this case who were also marginal witness of Ext. Kha-1 the family settlement deed besides its scribe D.W. 4. Thus the concurrent findings of both the courts below based on proper appraisal of all evidence on record is not liable to be interfered with and this appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs and the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are liable to be confirmed. 16. Thus the concurrent findings of both the courts below based on proper appraisal of all evidence on record is not liable to be interfered with and this appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs and the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are liable to be confirmed. 16. In view of the above, this appeal is hereby dismissed with costs and the judgments and decree passed by both the courts below are hereby confirmed. The plaintiff's suit stands dismissed with costs. The name of the plaintiff shall be expunged from the disputed plot and only the name of the defendant shall remain recorded over it. The papers shall be corrected accordingly.