JUDGMENT R.K. Kathuria, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.2.1990 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby judgment and decree dated 2.11.1978 passed by the Subordinate Judge, IInd Class, Rajpura (C), was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent filed against the defendant-appellants for partition of the suit property was decreed and a preliminary decree for partition of the suit property was passed. 2. The dispute raised in the suit related to one Bara shown by letters ABCD in the site plan annexed with the plaint, situated in village Boota Singh Wala, Tehsil Rajpura, whose boundaries have been fully described in the head-note of the plaint. According to the stand of the plaintiff, trees of Shisham, Khajoor, Nasuhra and Dake had been in existence in the said Bara. The plaintiff and defendants being brothers, jointly owned the suit property having 1/3rd share each. The plaintiff desired that the suit property should be partitioned and, accordingly, approached the defendants in this regard, but it has no effect on them. Forced by these circumstances, he filed the present suit seeking a decree for partition of the suit property against the defendants. 3. The defendants, in their joint written statement, did not dispute the relationship of plaintiff with them. At the same time, they refuted the stand of the plaintiff on the plea that the suit property was not joint property as the same had been partitioned since long and had fallen to their (defendants) share and from that time onwards they have been in its possession. The other pleas of estopped and non-maintainability of the suit were also raised by them. 4. The following issues were settled on the pleadings of the parties on 3.3.1978 :- "1. Whether the disputed Bara is jointly owned by plaintiff and defendants ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit from his conduct ? OPD. 4. Relief. 5. The learned trial Judge, while accepting the stand of the defendants, concluded that the suit property had already been partitioned between the parties and for that reason the plaintiff was estopped form filing the suit and the same, as such, was not maintainable. All the three issues were answered against the plaintiff and, resultantly, the suit was dismissed. Relief. 5. The learned trial Judge, while accepting the stand of the defendants, concluded that the suit property had already been partitioned between the parties and for that reason the plaintiff was estopped form filing the suit and the same, as such, was not maintainable. All the three issues were answered against the plaintiff and, resultantly, the suit was dismissed. In appeal, the findings of the learned trial Judge in respect of issue No. 1 were reversed and it was held that the partition of the suit property, as averred by the defendants, was not established on record. Consequently, while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, a preliminary decree for partition of the suit property was passed by the lower appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.2.1980 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, the appellant-defendants have filed the present appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel representing the appellants and have gone through the records carefully. 8. While assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.2.1980 passed by the lower appellate court, two-fold submissions have been made by the learned counsel representing the appellants before me. Firstly, that oral evidence adduced on record fully supports the stand of the appellants that the suit property had been partitioned much earlier to the filing of the present suit and the plaintiff has ceased to have any concern with the same. Secondly, that patent illegality has been committed in construing the writing regarding partition (Exhibit D.1) by returning a finding that it required registration, for which reason it has been excluded from consideration. In support of his submission that Exhibit D.1 did not require registration, strength was sought from the observations made in case C.S. Kamaraswami Gounder v. Aravagiri Gounder and another, AIR 1974 Madras 239 and Pritam Singh v. Darshan Singh and others, 1991 Civil Court Cases 642 (P&H). 9. In this case, relationship of Kapoor Singh plaintiff with Dalip Singh and Mohinder Singh defendants is not in dispute. It is also not disputed by the parties that at one point of time Bara in question was jointly owned by them. 9. In this case, relationship of Kapoor Singh plaintiff with Dalip Singh and Mohinder Singh defendants is not in dispute. It is also not disputed by the parties that at one point of time Bara in question was jointly owned by them. The only controversy which requires to be decided is whether the Bara had been partitioned, as alleged by the defendants, or it continues to be the joint property of the parties, as per the stand of the plaintiff. 10. In support of the case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint, he examined D.P. Gossain, Draftsman (P.W.1), Gainda Singh (P.W.2), Rachan Singh (P.W.3) and himself appeared as P.W. 4. D.P. Gossain (P.W.1) has only tried to prove site plan of the Bara in dispute. Gainda Singh (P.W.2) and Rachan Singh (P.W.3) have asserted in their testimony that the suit property was joint and ancestral property of the parties, who are brothers. The plaintiff also stated that the suit property had not been partitioned between them. Kapoor Singh (P.W.4) has explained in his deposition that he has 1/3rd share in the Bara in dispute and is in possession of some share of it. As he has not been in enjoyment of his complete share in the Bara he wants the same to be partitioned. He denied that he had signed on the writing Exhibit D.1. 11. To refute the above evidence of the plaintiff the defendants Joginder Singh (D.W.2) and Mohinder Singh (D.W.3) testified that Bara in dispute had been partitioned and further relied upon the writing regarding partition (Exhibit D.1), which had been signed by them, Kapoor Singh plaintiff and Scribe Prem Singh. The definite stand of Joginder Singh (D.W.2) is that the partition was effected at the time when writing Exhibit D.1 was executed and demarcation of the land was also done at that time. Mohinder Singh defendant (D.W.3) has also admitted that partition had been effected about two and a half years/three years ago and the possession of the Bara was accordingly delivered to them. Prem Singh (D.W.1), who had scribed the writing of partition (Exhibit D.1) has maintained that parties had partitioned their entire properties. Mohinder Singh defendant (D.W.3) has also admitted that partition had been effected about two and a half years/three years ago and the possession of the Bara was accordingly delivered to them. Prem Singh (D.W.1), who had scribed the writing of partition (Exhibit D.1) has maintained that parties had partitioned their entire properties. Regarding Bara in dispute, he stated that after it was partitioned, Dalip Singh defendant had constructed his house to the extent of his share while rest of the Bara to the extent of the share of the plaintiff and Mohinder Singh defendant had been lying vacant. 12. The entire case of the defendants is based on writing of partition (Exhibit D.1). Therefore, it is essential to notice the contents of the same in detail. It is in Punjabi and the English translation of the same has been furnished by the counsel for the appellant before me and the same reads as under :- "Writing regarding partition of Land, Bara house etc. Today on 13.12.75, we Kapoor Singh and Jat Singh alias Mohinder Singh sons of Tehal Singh, village Buta Singh Wala, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, have divided our shares as follows :- (i) The sixth share of Kapoor Singh is, which touches Kartar Singh son of Sunder Singh etc. on East, Mohinder Singh alias Jat Singh brother on West, Pahi on North and Locha of village Changera on the South. This field is in Pureya. (ii) In the grove of Mangoes, Sixth share is of Kapoor Singh, which touches Jat Singh alias Mohinder Singh on East, Atma Singh son of Sunder Singh on the West, Garib Singh son of Dalip Singh on the North, and Mehma Singh Nambardar on the South. In this piece, sixth share which touches Mehma Singh Nambardar, will be given to Kapoor Singh after leaving 2 Gatha passage. (iii) Sixth share of Ruri which is towards North given to Kapoor Singh. (iv) Sixth share of Bara is given to Kapoor Singh which touches Atma Singh son of Chamel Singh on North, Jat Singh alias Mohinder Singh on the South, Sham Lal on East and Pahi on the South. (v) Bara and house which their father gave to them and which is in the abadi. (iv) Sixth share of Bara is given to Kapoor Singh which touches Atma Singh son of Chamel Singh on North, Jat Singh alias Mohinder Singh on the South, Sham Lal on East and Pahi on the South. (v) Bara and house which their father gave to them and which is in the abadi. 25 long 12 wide Bara in the Abadi and on its East side is Ranjit Singh Chamaroo Wala, on West and on North is Jat Singh alias Mohinder Singh and on South side is passage. This space is of Kapoor Singh which was partitioned by their father and rest of partition we have done with consent of all. The possession of land will be given in Hari, year 1976 and copy of writing given to both. Sd/- (in Punjabi) Sd/- (in Punjabi) Joginder Singh Kapoor Singh. Sd/- (in Urdu) L.T.I. Jat @ Mohinder Singh Mohinder Singh, Kabu Dappar Sd/- (in English) L.T.I. Mukhtiar Singh Panch Prem Singh Sarpanch." 13. On the basis of the contents of the writing (Exhibit D.1), the learned trial Judge concluded that the same was admissible in evidence for collateral purpose in order to prove that a division in status of the parties had taken place and they were not joint. On that basis, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The learned appellate Judge differed with the findings so recorded by the trial court in this regard on two grounds. Firstly, that the partition alleged by the defendants is not proved and, secondly, that the writing regarding partition (Exhibit D.1) cannot be used for proving the partition of the property in dispute though it can be used for any other collateral purpose. 14. Admittedly, the writing (Exhibit D.1) had not been registered. In C.S. Kamaraswami Grounders case (supra), while dealing with the request of admissibility in evidence of unregistered partition deed, it was observed as under. "In the case of an express completed partition there are three different states :- 1. the stage of effecting a division in status; 2. the stage of dividing the properties by metes and bounds and 3. the stage of parties taking possession of the properties allotted to them. Every one of the stages can be effected orally and no document is necessary. the stage of effecting a division in status; 2. the stage of dividing the properties by metes and bounds and 3. the stage of parties taking possession of the properties allotted to them. Every one of the stages can be effected orally and no document is necessary. In respect of stage 1 and 3 even if there is a document it need not be registered, as the said stages cannot be said to declare, assign limit or extinguish" and right, title or interest to or in immovable property. It is only with regard to the second stage, namely, division of properties in different shares and allotment thereof to the various members, if the same is reduced to writing, it requires registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act. An unregistered partition deed though not admissible to prove the terms of the partition can be admitted in evidence for proving the stage (1) and (3) namely the division in status and the taking of possession and the nature and character of the possession of the shares allotted, these being collateral purposes." 15. In Pritam Singhs case (supra), in para 2 of the judgment, it was observed as follows :- "It is well settled, as held in Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debi Singh Bhujil and other, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 292, that a family settlement is generally prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon, in order that there are no hazy notions about it in future and where it is a document which is no more than a memorandum of what had been agreed to between the parties, it does not require registration. Further, in Ram Charan Das v. Girja Nandini Devi and others, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 323, it was held that Courts give effect to a family settlement upon the broad and general ground that its object is to settle existing or future disputes regarding property amongst members of a family and that in this context the word family is not to be understood in a narrow sense of being a group of persons whom the law recognises as having a right of succession or having a claim to share in the disputed property. The consideration for a family settlement is the expectation that such a settlement will result in establishing or ensuring amity and goodwill amongst the relations." 16. The consideration for a family settlement is the expectation that such a settlement will result in establishing or ensuring amity and goodwill amongst the relations." 16. The controversy raised in the present case has to be settled in the light of the position of law explained in the above-mentioned cases. The statements of Prem Singh (D.W.1), Joginder Singh (D.W.2) and Mohinder Singh (D.W.3), wherein they testified that the plaintiff was a party to writing regarding partition (Exhibit D.1), cannot be doubted. The denial of Kapoor Singh plaintiff in this regard is not sufficient to dislodge the statements of above-stated witnesses. In this case, Dalip Singh defendant No. 2 is not a signatory of the writing (Exhibit D.1), but it has no bearing on the case because he has not chosen to come into the witness box to dis-own this document. It is clear from the writing (Exhibit D.1) that properties mentioned in para Nos. 1 to 4 therein refer to the share of Kapoor Singh while the property detailed in para 5 refers to Bara in dispute. No doubt there is a specific mention that this property was given by the father of the parties, but the fact remains that this Bara and other properties mentioned in para Nos. 1 to 4 of Exhibit D.1 had been divided by metes and bounds at the time when document Exhibit D.1 was executed. This fact is not only admitted by Prem Singh (D.W.1), but also Joginder Singh (D.W.2) and Mohinder Singh (D.W.3) during the course of their statements. This deed regarding partition was executed on 13.12.1975 and possession of the properties was to be given in the year 1976, as mentioned therein. 17. In the light of the above circumstances, it cannot be said that document (Exhibit D.1) contains a mere list of properties which had formed the instrument of partition. Rather, it proposes not only to create and declare the rights of the parties, but also specifies the title and interest of the signatories to the document. It also declares volition of the parties to sever their joint ownership. Undisputedly, the value of the property involved is more than Rs. 100/- and, therefore, Exhibit D.1 would require registration. Bar of Section 46 of the Registration Act would come into play and prevent its acceptance is contained in Section 91 of the Evidence Act. It also declares volition of the parties to sever their joint ownership. Undisputedly, the value of the property involved is more than Rs. 100/- and, therefore, Exhibit D.1 would require registration. Bar of Section 46 of the Registration Act would come into play and prevent its acceptance is contained in Section 91 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, Exhibit D.1 has rightly been excluded from consideration by the learned appellate Judge. Resultantly, the suit property remains joint property of the parties. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned appellate Judge. The objection taken by the defendants with regard to estoppel and maintainability of the suit by the plaintiff, has no force. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Judge are upheld and the appeal is dismissed. Petition dismissed