JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal J. - The plaintiffs are in appeal before this Court against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, whereby that of the trial Court were reversed. 2. Briefly, the facts are that Narain Singh, Karey and Ramji Lal were three brothers. Indraj Singh son of Ramji Lal during his life time filed a suit against Karey. The claim in the suit was conceded by Karey on the basis of which consent decree was passed on 5.5.1989 regarding the property owned by him. It is this decree passed in favour of Indraj Singh son of Ramji Lal which was impugned by Narain Singh, one of the brothers. The trial Court decreed the suit. However, in appeal, the claim made by the appellants-plaintiffs was not found to be meritorious and the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 was allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the property in question was ancestral. Even if a consent decree had been passed in favour of Indraj Singh , the same required registration. On that account, the judgment and decree of the learned Court below cannot be given effect to as Indraj Singh had no pre-existing right in the property. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the decree in question was passed by the Court on 5.5.1989 in the suit filed by Indraj Singh was on the basis of a family settlement. In fact, Karey was issueless and Indraj Singh used to serve him and it was for this reason that he wanted to transfer his entire share of property in his favour. The property having been transferred in his favour during the life time of Karey, the appellants cannot be aggrieved of against the same. He relied upon a judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in Som Dev and others v. Rati Ram and another, to submit that if a decree is passed on the basis of family settlement, the same did not require registration. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From a perusal of the judgment of the learned Court below, it is evident that the entire material placed on record by the parties has been considered threadbare with the application of correct position of law. Karey during his life time had absolute right to transfer his property in favour of any one. From a perusal of the judgment of the learned Court below, it is evident that the entire material placed on record by the parties has been considered threadbare with the application of correct position of law. Karey during his life time had absolute right to transfer his property in favour of any one. The decree has not been challenged on the plea of fraud or misrepresentation. The clear stand of Indraj was that the land was transferred in his favour in view of family settlement and in terms of the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in Som Devs case (supra) in such a situation, the same did not require any registration. No substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.