Judgment : Heard both parties. 2. The above revision is directed against the order dated 110. 1996 in I.A.No.1228 of 1996 in O.S.No.496 of 1994 on the file of the learned District Minsif, Thiruthuraipoondi. 3. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner before this Court who filed the suit O.S.No.496 of 1994 before the learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi, for declaration of his right on the suit property on the basis of a family partition arrangement dated 29. 1994. of course, in the written statement, the defendant-respondent herein disputes the same and also have filed I.A.No. 1228 of 1996 before the learned District Munsif objecting the marking of the said family partition arrangement dated 29. 1974 by the plaintiff revision petitioner herein on the ground that the said family partition arrangement was not duly stamped nor registered and therefore inadmissible in view of Sec.35 of the Indian Stamp Act. 4. Accepting the contentions of the defendant -respondent herein, the learned District Munsif by his order dated 110. 1996 allowed the I.A.No. 1228 of 1996 and refused to permit the plaintiff-revision petitioner herein to mark the said family partition arrangement document in the above suit. Hence, the above revision preferred by the plaintiff-revision petitioner herein. 5. It is not in dispute that the said family partition arrangement is not duly stamped nor registered. That apart, while the plaintiff, revision petitioner claims that the defendant-respondent herein is the signatory to the said family partition arrangement dated 29. 1974, the defendant-respondent herein strangely denies the same. However, the plaintiff-petitioner seeks declaration mainly on the basis of the family partition arrangement dated 29. 1974 and proposed to mark the same as a document. 6. In this connection, I am obliged to refer the decision of the Apex Court in Kale v. Director Consolidation, (1976)3 S.C.R. 202 : A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 807, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: "The object of the arrangement is to protect the family from long drawn litigation or per petual strifes which mar the unity and solidarity of the family and create hatred and bad blood between the various members of the family. Today when we are striving to build up an egalitarian society and are trying for a complete re-construction of the society, to maintain and uphold the unity and homogeneity of the family which ultimately results in the unification of the society, and therefore, of the entire country, is the prima facie need of the hour. A family arrangement by which the property is equitably divided between the various contenders so as to achieve an equal distribution of wealth instead of concentrating the same in the hands of a few is undoubtedly a milestone in the administration of social justice. That is why the term “family” has to be understood in a wider sense so as to include within its fold not only close relations or legal heirs but even those persons who may have some sort of antecedent title, a semblance of a claim or even if they have a spes successionis so that future disputes are sealed for ever and the family instead of fighting claims inter se and wasting time, money and energy on such fruitless or futile litigation-is able to devote its attention to more constructive work in the larger interest of the country. The courts have, therefore, leaned in favour of upholding a family arrangement instead of disturbing the same on technical or trivial grounds. Where the courts find that the family arrangement suffers from a legal lacuna or a formal defect the rule of estoppel is pressed into service and is applied to shut out plea of the person who being a party to family arrangement seeks to unsettle a settled dispute and claims to revoke the family arrangement under which he has himself enjoyed some material benefits. The law in England on this point is almost the same. In Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 17, Third Edition, at pp. 215-216, the following apt observations regarding the essentials of the family settlement and the principles governing the existence of the same are made: “A family arrangement is an agreement between members of the same family, intended to be generally and reasonably for the benefit of the family either by compromising doubtful or disputed rights or by preserving the family by avoiding litigation or by saving its honour. The agreement may be implied from a long course of dealing, but it is more usual to embody or to effectuate the agreement in a deed to which the term”family arrangement “is applied. Family arrangements are governed by principles which are not applicable to dealings between strangers. The Court, when deciding the rights of parties under family arrangements considers what in the broadest view of the matter is most for the interest of families, and has regard to considerations which, in dealing with transactions between persons not members of the same family, would not be taken into account. Matters which would be fatal to the validity of similar transactions between strangers are not objections on the binding effect of family arrangements.” In other words to put the binding effect and the essential of a family settlement in a concretised form, the matter may be reduced into the form of the following propositions: .(1) The family settlement must be bona fide one so as to receive family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division of allotment of properties between the various members of the family; .(2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence; .(3) The family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary; .(4) It is well-settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the Court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Sec. 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable. 7. The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. 7. The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same. 8. Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement. 9. In the said decision, Apex Court has laid down the principles after referring to several decisions of this Court as well as other High Courts on the point. In the light of the above well-settled principle laid down by the Apex Court, I do not see any reason in the objections made by the learned counsel for the respondent opposing the marking of family partition arrangement dated 29. 1974, on the ground that the same was not duly stamped nor registered. 10. Therefore, order of the learned District Munsif dated 110. 1996 is set aside and I.A.No.1228 of 1996 stands dismissed, however, without prejudice to the contention of the defendant-respondent herein with regard to the said family partition arrangement dated 29. 1974. 11. In the result, revision petition is allowed with the observation stated above. No costs.