JUDGMENT M. M. Gopal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment dated 15-5-1985 of the learned Additional Commissioner by which he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court dated 15-3-1982. The trial court had dismissed the suit. 2. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the file. 3. The facts of the case are that a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act I of 1951 was filed. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the land in suit was the family property of the plaintiffs and defendants and the plaintiff has according to the pedigree, half share and the defendants have remaining half. Written statement was filed by the defendants. They denied the right of the plaintiff and inter alia alleged that there was a partition between the parties and they are in possession accordingly and that partition was binding. Hence the plaintiffs have no right to file a suit. The trial court accepting the allegations of the defendants dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court had not relied on the so called family partition and accordingly had decreed the suit allotting half share to the plaintiff and remaining to the defendants. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that family settlement cannot be discarded on the ground that it was not registered. This contention is correct. But in the present case the position is otherwise. The family settlement in Hindu Joint family does not require any registration and if there is some settlement between the members of the parties and that has been acted upon, there is no necessity for the registration of the same. The settlement can be done in two ways either orally or in writing. When the family settlement has been orally done, there is no question of registration but if it has been written down then any document which settles the right in respect of any immovable property it requires registration. In the present case the so called family settlement Ex. I dated 3-6-57 is in writing between the parties. It has been written that: " ----------vkt ls ge nksuksa Qjhd rLnhd djrs gSa fd vius&vius fgLls ls eryc j[ksaxs-------------" That means this is the basis of the settlement and it is in writing hence it must be registered. In the present case the so called family settlement Ex. I dated 3-6-57 is in writing between the parties. It has been written that: " ----------vkt ls ge nksuksa Qjhd rLnhd djrs gSa fd vius&vius fgLls ls eryc j[ksaxs-------------" That means this is the basis of the settlement and it is in writing hence it must be registered. The learned counsel has contended that this document may not be treated to be a family settlement and it may be treated as a compromise between the parties and they are in possession and the compromise does not require any registration. Hence it should be relied. This argument is also not of much value. Because it is not a compromise in respect of any litigation pending in any court. Secondly, it is not a writing affirming any action done previously or any settlement which does not require any transfer or possession between the parties. Hence in any case this document cannot give any right or take away any right to any party in the property and this cannot be accepted. 5. Merely because the parties are in possession over the joint family property, it cannot be said that they have acquired right over the same and the other party or the cotenant had lost his right, if any. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the lower appellate court has not discussed the evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. Hence the lower appellate court has committed an illegality. But in my opinion in the present case the question of discussing the oral evidence of the plaintiff is not essential. It is a family matter and the suit is of the partition simpliciter. There is no dispute between the parties that the property belong to their fathers jointly. But only question remains whether there was any pre-settlement between the parties or not and on that point the lower court has properly discussed the oral evidence also. 6. I, therefore, see no force in the second appeal. No illegality or error apparent on the face of it has been committed. Hence the second appeal is dismissed. Under the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.