JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - Present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents for declaration was partly decreed to the effect that the plaintiff is declared co-owner in joint possession to the extent of 1/3rd share in the property comprised in khewat Khatauni No.353/455, khasra No.348(O-5); (co-owner in joint possession to the extent of ½ share in the property bounded as East: House of Partap Singh, West: Gali North; House of Sadhu Singh and South: House of Bhag Singh etc. which was purchased by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in equal shares vide sale deed dated 7.1.1990 from Rattan Singh, to be the owner to the extent of 1/8 share in the properly comprised in khewat-khatauni No.350/390, khasra No.226(0-12), and being a co-owner in the suit property, he is also entitled to recover possession of two shops described with letters ABCD in the site Ex.P.1 bounded as East: Vacant site of Ram Asra son of Bhagwana, East: Pucca Road. North: Gali and South: House of Gurdev Singh, all situated at village Bhairo Majra. 2. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned lower appellate court. 3. The defendant-appellant has challenged the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below on the ground that there was a family settlement between the parties about 20 years back and therefore, the suit was not competent. Concurrent findings of facts have been recorded by the learned courts below to the effect that the plea of family settlement was totally vague and therefore, could not be believed and therefore, rejected the said plea of the defendant 4. Other contention of the appellant that the family settlement was reduced into writing before the Panchayat was also rejected on the ground that the said document was, in fact, a document creating a right for the parties and therefore, could not be read into evidence without registration. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below firstly on the ground that it is the outcome of misreading of evidence. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that PW 1 in his statement has admitted the oral settlement between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below firstly on the ground that it is the outcome of misreading of evidence. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that PW 1 in his statement has admitted the oral settlement between the parties. 5. This plea of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted as in the cross-examination a suggestion given to the witness was denied. In view of the statement made by PW1 it was for the defendant­appellant to have proved the oral settlement by leading oral and cogent evidence. None was led. Even document relied upon by the appellant would show that the memo of settlement cannot be accepted. As this document clearly shows that the property between the parties was being partitioned in the presence of parties and it was clearly mentioned in the document that no party would raise any objection to the partition in a suit as it was a deed of partition being written in the presence of parties and not a memorandum. Learned courts below were right in observing that in the absence of registration it could not be read into evidence. In that eventuality also it was for the defendant-appellant to have produced evidence to prove his assertion and the said document should have been used only for collateral purposes and cannot be a base to deny a claim. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also by placing reliance upon the judgment of this court in the case of Jagdish & Ors.Vs. Ram Karan & Ors, 2003 (1) Civil Court Cases 372 and Som Dev and others Vs. Rati Ram and another (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 788 contended that the family settlement did not require registration and therefore, the learned courts bellow were wrong in rejecting the document, duly exhibited on record. This plea cannot be accepted as upon the reading of the document it cannot be said to be a settlement but merely a partition deed which did require registration, The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, cannot apply to the facts of present the case. No ground is made out which may call for interference by this court in regular second appeal. No ground is made out which may call for interference by this court in regular second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court in this appeal. Dismissed. ------------------------