JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 24.10.1997 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) East, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 76/1984, by which order the learned trial Court had allowed the application of defendant No. 1.The suit was filed by the petitioner for declaration that he is entitled for ⅙th share in the suit property i.e. house No. 3/185, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur which was originally allotted in the name of mother of plaintiff-petitioner. 2. It was the contention of petitioner-plaintiff that mutual family settlement had been entered into by the parties. The petitioner wanted to produce the copy of family settlement dated 2.6.1983 on record. The application u/O 13 R. 2 CPC was moved for taking on record the said document family settlement dated 2.6.1983, wherein it was mentioned that the family members were living in the house in question and was purchased with the assistance of Mohan Lilani and it was settled that the house shall be considered as joint house of HUF and so far the mother would survive she will have a right of use of the house and after her the house shall be divided equally amongst the heirs. The petitioner moved an application for examining the witnesses in this regard which was allowed on 19.11.1996 on the cost of Rs. 100/-. 3. An objection had been taken by the respondents that the family settlement cannot be admitted in evidence unless it is registered. The trial Court had observed that the family settlement creates right in between the parties, and therefore, it is not admissible in evidence, unless it is registered. Aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 4. For the reason that the suit is pending for final disposal before the trial Court, the counsel for parties pray that the revision petition be decided at admission stage. 5. It is not disputed that the family settlement does not require any registration. In family settlement parties do agree for creating and taking away certain rights in the property and in the circumstances mentioned, if family members do agree to share the property equally, it cannot be said that it is not a family settlement. In my opinion, the trial Court has erred and has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it by declining to take on record the family settlement. 6. In my opinion, the trial Court has erred and has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it by declining to take on record the family settlement. 6. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the impugned order, the impugned order is set aside. The family settlement does not require any registration and be admitted in evidence. 7. However, any observation made in this order shall not be construed about truthfulness of contents of the settlement which have to be proved by way of evidence. 8. With the above observations, the revision petition is allowed.Revision allowed. *******