ORDER The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 96 of 1997, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, filed this revision, aggrieved by the order dated 31-8-2005, passed by the trial Court. 2. The petitioners filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, vis-a-vis the suit schedule property. The respondents are defendants in that suit. The trial of the suit commenced and the recording of evidence of the petitioners was concluded. The 2nd respondent herein filed his affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination as D.W.1. Several documents were enclosed , to the affidavit. The petitioners raised serious objection for receiving of two documents viz, a deed of family arrangement dated 5-5-1993, marked as EX.B-34, and a family dispute resolution, dated 30-1-1994, marked as X-8. Extensive submissions were made on behalf of the petitioners, about the admissibility of the said documents. The objections mainly related to the registration and stamp duty. Through the order under revision, the trial court overruled the objections, and received the documents. 3. Sri S. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the documents have the effect of bringing about alteration in the rights of the parties, in respect of immovable properties, and they were compulsorily registerable. He contends that though there are certain recitals about the discussion that has preceded the settlements, the ultimate settlement came to be effected through the documents, and in that view of the matter, they were not admissible in evidence, without registration. He cited several judgments in support of his contention. 4. Sri P.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the documents by themselves, did not bring about any settlement, in respect of the immovable property. He submits that a perusal of the documents discloses that they did nothing more than refer to the agreement arrived at between the parties, and have also mentioned the fact that the final documents, with due registration, must be executed, at a later point of time. 5. The controversy in this C.R.P. is about the admissibility of two deeds of family settlement or arrangement. The first one is dated 5-5-1993, which is marked as EX.B-34. The other one is also in the form of a family settlement and it is dated 30-1-1994, marked as EX.X-8. Admittedly, both the documents were not registered, nor were executed on requisite stamp paper. 6. The first one is dated 5-5-1993, which is marked as EX.B-34. The other one is also in the form of a family settlement and it is dated 30-1-1994, marked as EX.X-8. Admittedly, both the documents were not registered, nor were executed on requisite stamp paper. 6. Family settlements stand on a totally different footing, in the context of registration and stamp duty. In Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Supreme Court had reviewed the law on the subject. The judgments rendered by various courts, commencing from (1911) 38 Indian Appeals 87 (Privy Council), to AIR 1972 SC 2069 , were discussed at length, and ultimately it was held as under: "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 Section 17(2) (sic) (Sec. 17(1) (b)?) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registerable;" Another settled principle of law is that, mere nomenclature of the document by itself, is not a factor to decide its nature, and much would depend upon the contents of documents. 7. In Setti Siddamma v. S.Ramulu2, this Court held that the admissibility of a document can be considered by the trial court at three stages, viz. at the stage, when the documents are presented along with the affidavit in lieu of chief-examination; at the stage, where the concerned witness is cross-examined; and at the stage of arguments. In Palamapalli Rama Subba Reddy v. Palamapalli Subba Reddy, it was held that unless a document is properly stamped, it cannot be received in evidence, even for collateral purposes, notwithstanding the facility created under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. To the same effect is the judgment in Netrambaka Krishnaiah v. Nellore Audinarayanct. The documents in question need to be examined, on the basis of the principles referred to above. 8. EX.A-34 is named as Memorandum of Understanding-cum-Family Arrangement. To the same effect is the judgment in Netrambaka Krishnaiah v. Nellore Audinarayanct. The documents in question need to be examined, on the basis of the principles referred to above. 8. EX.A-34 is named as Memorandum of Understanding-cum-Family Arrangement. It was executed between one Majeti Suryanarayana and his alleged adopted son, Rama Krishna Prasad, the 2nd respondent herein, The first part of the document refers to the factum of adoption, which is said to have taken place on 10-12-1992, and execution of a deed of adoption on 4-3-1993. Thereafter, it proceeds to make a reference to the fact that the marriage prospects of the adopted son was becoming weak, on account of the fact that his actual entitlement in the properties held by the family, was not clear, and the corresponding discussion that has taken place with the participation of mediators. The settlement that has emanated in the said discussion is stated to be in relation to two items of property i.e. EX.B-4 (sic. B-34) itself, namely, A-Schedule and B-Schedule. It was agreed between the parties that they shall execute a separate partition deed or family settlement, in respect of B-Schedule properties and get it registered in the office of the District Registrar, Guntur. So far as A-Schedule is concerned, it is stated that it was agreed between the parties, that the adoptive father would have life interest and thereafter, it would devolve upon adopted son. Certain other aspects were also referred to. 9. From the perusal of the contents of Ex.B-4 (sic. B-34), it does not emerge that the document, by itself, had brought about any changes in the rights of the parties. At the most, it can be said that it had summarized the arrangements that have already taken place, as between the parties, including the steps, which they proposed to undertake in future. It can only enable one party to the" document, require the other party, to perform his part of the promise, and not beyond that. 10. The other document dated 30-1-1994, marked as EX.X-8. This also refers to the relationship between the alleged adoptive father and adopted son and the agreement arrived at, between them. In a way, it is continuation of EX.B-4 (sic. B-34), but does not lead the matter to any finality. 10. The other document dated 30-1-1994, marked as EX.X-8. This also refers to the relationship between the alleged adoptive father and adopted son and the agreement arrived at, between them. In a way, it is continuation of EX.B-4 (sic. B-34), but does not lead the matter to any finality. One sentence of this document, which assumes importance, is that it provides for depositing of the said document with one Sri Polisetty Seetha Ramaiah, till the disputes, referred to in the document, are settled and regular registered documents are executed. This sentence would putan end to the doubt, if any, as to the nature of the document. 11. The recognized principle in the matter of construing documents is that, where a document provides for execution of a separate document and registration thereof, at a later point of time, it cannot be treated as the one, conferring any rights or creating interests in the parties and thereby registered. EX.X-8 47 falls into that category, inasmuch as it contemplates execution of separate and independent document. 12. The trial Court has undertaken extensive and useful discussion, based on settled principle of law. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.