JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - These are four connected appeals, Appeal No. 66 has been brought by plaintiff Purshottam whereas appeals No. 68, 77 and 78 have been filed by Harihar Prasad defendant. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the plaintiff Purshottam filed two suits No. 44 and 45 under Section 176 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. In suit No. 44 he claimed half share. This suit was decreed and there is no grievance to either of the of the parties so far as the shares determined in that suit are concerned. In suit No. 45 the plaintiff claimed ?rd share in the property of three villages namely Walinagar, Chiraiyakot and Dostpur. So far as the property of village Chiraiyakot is concerned none of that parties has any grievance against the share determined therein. As regards the village Walinagar the plaintiff's suit was dismissed in respect of all the plots No. 9/7, 12 and 16. The plea of the defendant in the case of village Walinagar was that plaintiff and the defendants were co-bhumidhars and the plaintiff had only th share therein and the defendant Harihar had also th share. Defendant No. 5 Smt. Surat Kunwar had also th share and defendant No. 2 to 4 too had th share. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were running a joint firm and the plaintiff had relinquished his th share in respect of this property in favour of defendant No. 1 through a mutual compromise and he put the defendant into possession of his share and, therefore, the plaintiff lost his entire in respect of the property of this village and, therefore, the share of defendant No. 1 is 1/2 whereas the share of defendant No. 5 Smt. Surat Kunwar is th and defendants No. 2 to 4 jointly have th share. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in respect of the property of village Walinagar and by admitting the defence plea determined the share of the defendant Harihar to be 1/2 and that of defendants No. 2 to 4 to be ?th each because it was held that they had purchased the share of defendant No. 5 . Both plaintiff as well as defendant No. 1 went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner against the judgment of the trial court dated August 8, 1980. Both plaintiff as well as defendant No. 1 went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner against the judgment of the trial court dated August 8, 1980. A cross-objection was also filed by Mohan and others before the Additional Commissioner which was also party allowed. The appeal of the defendant Harihar was dismissed and the share of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 Harihar both was held to be th each village Walinagar. In village Dostpur the plaintiff's share was held to be 1/2 by him. Plaintiff, therefore, filed appeal No. 66 against the judgment of the Additional Commissioner because he was claiming ?rd share in Walinagar while he was given only th share. The defendant Harihar filed appeal No. 68 because according to him plaintiff had no share in village Walinagar and had only ?rd share in village Dostpur. Appeal No. 77 and 78 have also been filed by the defendant against the judgment of the Additional Commissioner because the order of the trial court for the appointment of the receiver about the share of the plaintiff was upheld by the former. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. All the four appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Appeal No. 77 and 78 have almost become infructuous because the shares of the parties are being finally determined in these appeals. However these appeals are entitled to be allowed because the trial court acted beyond jurisdiction by appointing a receiver in the joint property when there was no partition on the spot. The order of the Additional Commissioner, therefore, also bears the same defect and is liable to be set aside. Both of these appeals should, therefore, be allowed and the order of the trial court for the appointment of the receiver must be quashed. 5. Appeals No. 66 and 68 are relevant about the shares of the parties hence they carry more importance. It is the case of both the parties that the plaintiff and all the defendants were co-bhumidhars of the entire land in dispute. 5. Appeals No. 66 and 68 are relevant about the shares of the parties hence they carry more importance. It is the case of both the parties that the plaintiff and all the defendants were co-bhumidhars of the entire land in dispute. The defendant Harihar's case is that on account of a mutual compromise between him and the plaintiff, being the member of an undivided Hindu Joint family the share of the plaintiff in Walinagar was surrendered in favour of defendant and, therefore, the plaintiff lost his entire title and possession over his share in the land of that village and that the defendant Harihar came to hold the plaintiff's share as well. In this connection an unregistered agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant Harihar dated December 29, 1973 has been brought on record by the defendant and the trial court has held it to be proved on the basis of the oral evidence as well the evidence of handwriting expert. The learned Additional Commissioner has disagreed with the view of the trial court and has held that this document is not admissible in evidence because it is unregistered. The trial court on the basis of this document held that the plaintiff has relinquished his share in favour of defendant Harihar. However the learned Additional Commissioner did not reverse the finding of the trial court about the genuineness of the document and did not hold that it was not executed by the plaintiff. From the finding recorded by the trial court about the genuineness of the document and did not hold that it was not executed by the plaintiff. From the finding recorded by the trail court and from the evidence of the expert on the record this document Ext. K-1 seems to have been duly proved by the defendant. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that this document cannot be read in evidence because it is not registered. I do not agree with this argument nor do I think that this document was required to be registered because it was a sort of family settlement arrived at between two of the co-parceners and was admissible in evidence as such and was not required to be registered at all. I do not agree with this argument nor do I think that this document was required to be registered because it was a sort of family settlement arrived at between two of the co-parceners and was admissible in evidence as such and was not required to be registered at all. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that if this document is admitted as a family settlement it should have been executed by all the members of the family. I am afraid that this argument has no force because a family may consist of a large number of persons and the settlement may be arrived at between two or more persons only and, therefore, it is not necessary that all the other members of the family should also execute such document. It can be executed by the co-parcener interested in the settlement and need not be signed by the other co-parceners who may of course put their signatures if they so like as witnesses of the transaction. It is however not incumbent upon the other uninterested members of the family to put their signatures on the document so executed. Consequently in the instant case if Ext. Ka-1 was executed by the plaintiff alone it would not be held to be defective for want of registration and it can be used as a piece of evidence against the plaintiff and would operate as estoppel against him. In this document the plaintiff has admitted his share to be only th and not ?rd. Consequently the plaintiff could not claim more than th share in the land of Walinagar which seems to be correct in view of the pedigree as well. Consequently the learned Additional Commissioner was not justified in reversing the finding of the trial court in respect of the property of village Walinagar and the plaintiff's suit was rightly dismissed in so far as land of this village is concerned. 7. As regards the land of village Dostpur plaintiff had claimed only ?rd share and from the pedigree also he had only ?rd share but the learned Additional Commissioner has given share to the plaintiff without any rhyme or reason. Consequently the order of the Additional Commissioner deserved to be modified so far as the share of the plaintiff in village Dostpur is concerned and is held to be ?rd and not 1/2. Consequently the order of the Additional Commissioner deserved to be modified so far as the share of the plaintiff in village Dostpur is concerned and is held to be ?rd and not 1/2. Accordingly the share of the defendant No. 5 is also held to be ?rd and that of defendant No. 1 to be ?th. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 have 1/18th share each. 8. As a result of the above discussion the appeal No. 66 of the plaintiff Purshottam fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal Nos. 77 and 78 filed by defendant Harihar are allowed and the order passed by the trial court about the appointment of the receiver and upheld by the Additional Commissioner is set aside. Appeal No. 68 filed by the defendant is also allowed and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed in so far as his share in village Walinagar in respect of plots No. 9/7, 12 and 16 is concerned and the plaintiff is not held to be a co-bhumidhar of the above plots in the village, the defendants Harihar share is held to be and share of defendants No. 2 to 5 is also held to be , and further the order of the Additional Commissioner dated December 4, 1981 is modified to the extent that the share of the plaintiff in the land of village Dostpur is held to be ?rd and the sharts of the defendant No. 1 to be ?th, defendant No. 2 to 4 to be 1/18th each and that of defendant No. 5 to be ?rd. Let the record be sent back to the trial court for preparation of final decree in accordance with the observations made above. This order shall govern Appeal No. 66 and 68 of 1982-83, Azamgarh.