Judgment K.A. Puj, J.—The appellants - ori. plaintiffs have filed this Appeal From Order under Order-43, Rule-1(r) of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and order passed by the learned City Civil Judge on 22.4.2009 below notice of motion application Exhibit 7 in Civil Suit No. 2028 of 2008 whereby the said notice of motion application was rejected. 1.1. This Court has issued notice for final disposal making it returnable on 25.9.2009. Notice was also issued in Civil Application and parties were directed to maintain status-quo as on that day. The said order of status-quo is continued till this date. 2. Heard Mr. M. C. Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing with Mr. Y. V. Brahmbhatt for the appellants and Mr. Rajeshwar J. Dave, learned Advocate appearing for Respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Dhaval G. Nanavati, learned Advocate appears for the Respondent No. 3. It is the case of the appellants that they filed Suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent for declaring that the suit land bearing Survey No. 173 situated in Rajpur-Hirpur Sim, Ahmedabad, admeasuring about 4 Acre and 30 Gunthas i.e. 20,933 Sq.Yards of land is belonging to the appellants and they have undivided shares in the suit property. The prayer was, therefore, made to restrain the respondents from disturbing peaceful possession of the land. The appellants have also filed injunction application Exhibit 7 for restraining the respondents from disturbing their possession. 3. Mr. M. C. Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing for appellants has submitted that the suit land bearing Survey No. 173 is ancestral property and the appellants have undivided share in the suit property and there is no partition between the co-parceners. The alleged partition deed dated 2.5.2005 is an unregistered document. It cannot be admitted as an admissible evidence in view of the provisions contained in Section 17(1)(b) read with Section 53 of the Indian Registration Act. Mr. Bhatt further submitted that the learned City Civil Judge has erroneously considered the registered agreement of sale dated 15.2.1985 made between the appellant and proposed Suchit Niradhar Mandal Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. As a matter of fact the said agreement dated 15.2.1985 being in favour of proposed Co-op. Housing Society is not permissible and the said agreement is illegal, null and void and upon this agreement no right can be created in favour of the proposed society. Mr. Housing Society Ltd. As a matter of fact the said agreement dated 15.2.1985 being in favour of proposed Co-op. Housing Society is not permissible and the said agreement is illegal, null and void and upon this agreement no right can be created in favour of the proposed society. Mr. Bhatt further submitted that no power of attorney has been given by the appellants and no possession was handed over to the respondents or to drawee of agreement. The land in question is open land and after Town Planning Scheme the Final Plot Nos. 384/1, 384/2 and 383/3 were given to the owners and 13,200 Sq.Mtrs. of land were in possession of the respondents as a co-parceners of the property and the respondents have no rights in the said property. 4. Mr. Bhatt further submitted that the land in question is an agricultural land and the respondents have no legal rights to purchase the said property and the so called agreement dated 15.2.1985 is null and void. The said agreement was not executed as there was no fulfillment of the obligation of the drawee and the said document is of no consequence. Mr. Bhatt further submitted that under the Transfer of Property Act there is restriction and no such documents can be executed against the present appellants. The finding arrived at by the learned City Civil Judge is based on the agreement dated 15.2.1985 which on the face of it does not seem to be enforceable. The alleged partition took place between the owners and thereafter, partition dated 15.2.1985 was made in favour of the respondents and the possession was given of the suit property to the respondents. Because of the agreement of sale dated 15.2.1985 in favour of the proposed society and its promoters, the possession was said to be handed over and there was construction of flats, tenaments shops etc., in the suit property. Mr. Bhatt submitted that actually there was no lawful possession with the respondent and the possession was assumed by the learned City Civil Judge solely on the basis of the document dated 15.2.1985. Lastly he has submitted that there is no prima facie case, nor balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent and hence the learned City Civil Judge should have granted interim injunction as prayed for in injunction application. 5. Mr. Lastly he has submitted that there is no prima facie case, nor balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent and hence the learned City Civil Judge should have granted interim injunction as prayed for in injunction application. 5. Mr. Bhatt further submitted that even otherwise no partition has ever taken place between the owners of the land bearing Survey No. 173 in question. The deed of partition was never executed between the legal heirs of original owners and the said document was prepared and created by the Respondent No. 2 and the stamp paper used for the purpose of executing the said document was purchased by the Respondent No. 2 and the signature of the appellant and one Satyanarayan Ishvarlal and other persons are forged one. He has further submitted that though the mother of the appellant Kantaben has died on 26.4.1999 initially her signature was fabricated and made by the said person and later on it was cancelled. The said document regarding the partition is created with ulterior motive to get the entry in the name of the respondent and to create right in the land in question. The sand entry and the documents are challenged by the appellant and by another co-owner and the appeal is pending before the Dy. Collector, Ahmedabad being RTS Appeal - Case No. 97 of 2008. Mr. Bhatt further submitted that the respondent has managed in the Municipal Corporation and illegally obtained sanction plan for construction without the signature of the appellant and the co-owner. The respondents are the promoters of the proposed society and as a promoter in the guise of agreement of sale deed dated 15.2.1985 the respondents illegally constructed the building in the society. 6. In support of his submission that alleged partition deed has no evidential value Mr. Bhatt relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Siromani vs. Hemkumar, Dinmani, reported in AIR 1968 SC 1299 , wherein while declaring the document dated 27.12.1943 as inadmissible in evidence the Court held that there was allotment of specific properties to individual co-parceners by virtue of the document dated 27.12.1943 which was unregistered and hence it falls within the mischief of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. The Court further held that it is not admissible in evidence to prove the title of any of the co-parcerns to any particular property or to prove that any particular property has ceased to be joint property. 7. Mr. Bhatt further submitted that during the subsistence of the order of status-quo and even after services of the said order on the Respondent No. 2, the respondents have intentionally committed breach of status-quo order passed by this Court. They have shown their total disrespect to the interim relief passed by this Court and they have intentionally and without any justifiable cause continued the construction of the suit property. In support of this submission Mr. Bhatt has referred to the photographs showing the construction and also the bill issued by the photographers. Mr. Bhatt further submitted that instead of stopping the construction the respondents have tried to carry out the construction in unusual speed to over-reach the process of the Court and ultimate intention of the respondent is to see that the application for interim injunction filed by the appellants and the order of status quo obtained would become infructuous. 8. Mr. R. J. Dave, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 and 2 have submitted that the suit filed by the appellant itself is not tenable and maintainable in eye of law in as much as the same is filed with an oblique and ulterior motive by suppressing material facts and the same is filed much beyond the prescribed period of limitation only with mala fide intention. He has further submitted that the original Survey No. 173 of Village : Rajpur-Hirpur, Taluka City, Dist. Ahmedabad. After implementation of Town Planning Scheme No. 24 the said survey number was divided and given as Final Plot No. 384/1 admeasuring about 8844 Sq.Mtrs., of land Final Plot No. 384/2 admeasuring about 802 Sq.Mtrs., of land, and Final Plot No. 384/3 admeasuring about 877 Sq.Mtrs., of land, the remaining land was acquired by the Municipal Corporation under the implementation of the Town Planning Scheme for the purpose of 40 Mtrs., wide T.P. Road. He has further submitted that the respondents had purchased the land bearing Final Plot No. 384/3 admeasuring about 877 Sq.Mtrs., from one Durgaben Ishwarlal and Kailashben Ishwarlal vide Registered Sale Deed on 22.6.2005. He has further submitted that the respondents had purchased the land bearing Final Plot No. 384/3 admeasuring about 877 Sq.Mtrs., from one Durgaben Ishwarlal and Kailashben Ishwarlal vide Registered Sale Deed on 22.6.2005. Thereafter, mutation entry was effected in revenue record in favour of the Respondent No. 2 which is never challenged by the appellants. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation had also sanctioned plan for construction and commencement letter (Raja-chitthi) was issued on 19.10.2006. Thus, the Respondent No. 2 has become the lawful owner and occupier of the land bearing Final Plot No. 384/3 admeasuring about 877 Sq.Mtrs. 9. Mr. Dave further submitted that as far as Final Plot No. 384/2 is concerned, which is admeasuring 802 Sq.Mtrs., wherein commercial construction is in existence which is known as “Kevaldham Complex” and as far as Final Plot No. 384/1 admeasuring about 8844 Sq.Mtrs., of land is concerned there is construction of Co-operative Societies, which are known as (1) Vishvakarma Society (2) Kevaldham Society and (3) Niradhar Society and land admeasuring about 1000 Sq.Mtrs., which is in possession of the Respondent No. 2 wherein construction of shops and some Kachcha construction are erected by the Respondent No. 2 and accordingly that they are in possession of the subject land is absolutely false. 10. Mr. Dave further submitted that deed of partition was executed between the 16 legal heirs of the original owner in respect of land bearing Survey No. 173, Final Plot No. 384/1, 384/2 and 384/3 on 2.5.2005 alongwith the map showing the share of the individuals and accordingly appellants are having a share of 293 Sq.Mtrs., each. The appellants are also party to the said deed of partition and accordingly the land bearing Final Plot No. 384/3 admeasuring about 877 Sq.Mtrs., was given to Durganeb Ishwarlal and Kailashben Ishwarlal, from whom Respondent No. 2 had purchased the said land by Registered Sale Deed. He has further submitted that the said partition deed records that the entire land is given under the development agreement and/or under the agreement to sale to the third party, namely, Respondent No. 2 and others. This fact is suppressed by the appellants and, therefore, on this ground alone the suit deserves to be dismissed with compensatory costs. 11. Mr. He has further submitted that the said partition deed records that the entire land is given under the development agreement and/or under the agreement to sale to the third party, namely, Respondent No. 2 and others. This fact is suppressed by the appellants and, therefore, on this ground alone the suit deserves to be dismissed with compensatory costs. 11. Mr. Dave further submitted that in the injunction application filed by the appellants, prayer is made that the respondents be restrained from taking forcible possession of land bearing Survey No. 173 admeasuring 20933 Sq.Mtrs. The appellants have deliberately not mentioned Final Plot number of the land with a view to mislead this Court. He has further submitted that it was well within knowledge of the appellants that on the land bearing Survey No. 384/3 construction is going on as per the sanctioned plan and carried out by the Respondent No. 2. With some motive, proceedings were initiated by the appellants which are not maintainable in eye of law. 12. Mr. Dave further submitted that the plan was prepared for sub-plotting of Survey No. 173 Para-I wherein Niradhar Society is distinctly shown. The said plan was signed by the appellants and the said land was sold to proposed Niradhar Co-operative Society by registered agreement to sell dated 15.2.1985 by original owners Chhanalal Govindlal alongwith Kantaben Natvarlal in individual capacity as well as guardian of minor Ghanshyam and by the appellant No. 1. He has further submitted that separate possession agreement was executed in favour of the proposed society. Accordingly tenaments or row-houses are constructed over the said land. He has further submitted that the present proceedings were initiated by the appellants despite the fact that they are neither in possession of any piece of land bearing Final Plot No. 384/1, 384/2 and 384/3 even though they executed agreement to sale of 17705 Sq.Mtrs., land bearing Survey No. 173 with one Mr. Naranbhai Desai and Mr. Pramodbhai Patel vide agreement dated 28.8.2008. He has further submitted that the said third party have filed one Civil Suit No. 1884 of 2009 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad wherein relief is prayed for against the Respondent No. 2 restraining him from carrying out construction on Final Plot No. 384/3 admeasuring about 877 Sq.Mtrs. Naranbhai Desai and Mr. Pramodbhai Patel vide agreement dated 28.8.2008. He has further submitted that the said third party have filed one Civil Suit No. 1884 of 2009 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad wherein relief is prayed for against the Respondent No. 2 restraining him from carrying out construction on Final Plot No. 384/3 admeasuring about 877 Sq.Mtrs. He has further submitted that even in the report of the Court Commissioner Respondent No. 2 was found in possession and it was also found that the construction work is going on. Mr. Dave therefore submitted that in view of this documentary evidence the appellants were never in possession of the subject land and hence there is no question of dispossessing them from the subject land. 13. Mr. Dave further submitted that the document dated 2.5.2005 is virtually a family arrangement which does not require registration in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Tek Bahadur Bhujil vs. Debi Singh Bhujil and Others reported in AIR 1966 SC 292 (2) Kale vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, reported in AIR 1976 SC 807 and (3) Somdev and Others vs. Ratiram and Another, reported in AIR 2006 SC 3297 . 14. Mr. Dave in support of his submission that there is no prima facie case made out by the appellants to justify his possession and/or title in subject land relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Yamuna Nagar Improvement trust vs. Khariatilal, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 30 . He has further submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mandali Ranganna & Ors., vs. T. Ramachandra & Ors., reported in AIR 2008 SC 2291 , the conduct of the parties are required to be considered while deciding the application for grant of injunction. He also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hanumanthappa vs. Munnarayanappa, reported in (1996) 11 SCC 696 , wherein it is held that no injunction may be granted against the original owner. He has, therefore, submitted that the learned City Civil Judge has considered the entire documents that are available on record and has taken into account the conduct of the appellants. He has, therefore, submitted the Appeal From Order deserves to be dismissed. 15. With regard to alleged breach of this order Mr. He has, therefore, submitted that the learned City Civil Judge has considered the entire documents that are available on record and has taken into account the conduct of the appellants. He has, therefore, submitted the Appeal From Order deserves to be dismissed. 15. With regard to alleged breach of this order Mr. Dave submitted that before service of order by this Court on 16.9.2009 at about 5:00 p.m. one room with galvanize sheet roof was erected for the purpose of storage of cement etc., and also for the purpose of using as a site office one small unit was constructed. He has further submitted that no additional construction was carried out by the respondents on the subject property. Only plastering work was carried out after service of the order of this Court without any intention to disobey the order of this Court. Even on toilet as well as on room no doors and/or widows are installed. Even flooring work is not carried out. He has, therefore, submitted that the order of this Court was abide in its true later and spirit. Since plaster work was carried out without any intention to disobey the order of this Court which may be considered as a bona fide mistake on part of the Respondents No. 1 and 2 and hence unconditional apology was tendered by the Respondent No. 2. He has, therefore, submitted that the unconditional apology of the Respondent No. 2 be accepted and the respondent be permitted to defend the said application as well as Appeal From Order. 16. Having heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and having considered their rival submissions in light of the statutory provisions and decided case law on the subject, the Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court below notice of motion application Exhibit 7 in Civil Suit No. 2028 of 2008 does not call for any interference by this Court. The first submission made by Mr. Bhatt is in connection with the partition deed, which is unregistered and hence the same cannot be treated as an admissible evidence. It is, however, to be noted that the appellants are themselves signatories of the same document and that has been acted upon. Though the document is of 2005 the appellants have challenged the said document in 2008. Bhatt is in connection with the partition deed, which is unregistered and hence the same cannot be treated as an admissible evidence. It is, however, to be noted that the appellants are themselves signatories of the same document and that has been acted upon. Though the document is of 2005 the appellants have challenged the said document in 2008. As a result of the said document, the respondents have got their respective shares in the properties, which have also been sold by some of them. It is further to be noted here that the said document, more or less appears to be in the nature of family arrangement and it is settled position in law that if the properties are distributed amongst the family members by way of family arrangement it does not require any registration. In Tek Bahadur Bhujil (Supra) the Apex Court has clearly held that, family arrangement as such can be arrived at orally. Its terms may be recorded in writing as a memorandum of what had been agreed upon. The memorandum need not be prepared for the purpose of being used as a document on which future title of the parties is founded. It is generally prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon, in order that there are no hazy notions about it in future. It is only when the family arrangement is reduced in writing with the purpose of using that writing as proof of what they had arranged and where the arrangement is brought about by the document as such, that the document requires registration, because it is then that it would amount to a document of title declaring for future what rights and in what properties the parties possess. But a document which is no more than a memorandum of what had been agreed to between the parties does not require compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Even in the case of Kale vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation (Supra), the Apex Court has held as under :— (1) The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family. Even in the case of Kale vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation (Supra), the Apex Court has held as under :— (1) The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family. (2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence; (3) The family arrangements may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary; (4) 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 immoveable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) (sic) (Section 17(1)(b)?) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable; (5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has not title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owners, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the Court will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same; (6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement. 17. 17. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Premlall Seal and Others vs. Smt. Basanti Seal and Others, reported in AIR 2004 Calcutta 246, has gone to that extent that the Courts have taken a very liberal and broad view of the validity of the family settlement and have always tried to uphold it and maintain it. The central idea in the approach made by the Courts is that if by consent of parties a matter has been settled, it should not be allowed to be reopened by the parties to the agreement on frivolous or untenable grounds. At the same time, the family arrangement must be bona fide and effected to resolve family disputes. It must be a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family. It must be done voluntarily. It is to be made amicably. It should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence. It may be made orally without any registration unless the creation of the family arrangement is reduced to writing. It would not be registrable when it is a memorandum or piece of evidence of the family arrangement already made. 18. The second argument of Mr. Bhatt while challenging the impugned order is that the learned trial Judge has erroneously considered the registered agreement of sale deed dated 15.2.1985 which is executed in favour of the proposed society, namely, Niradhar Mandl Co-operative Society Ltd. First of all, the agreement dated 15.2.1985 is challenged in the suit filed in 2009. Secondly, the said agreement was signed by owner - Chhanalal Govindlal alongwith Kantaben Natvarlal in her individual capacity as well as guardian of minor Ghanshyamm, appellant No. 2 herein and it was also signed by the appellant No. 1. Having signed the said agreement way back in 1985 it is not open for the appellants to challenge the said agreement in the present proceedings. Even otherwise, the present suit is merely confining to the land bearing Final Plot No. 384/3, more particularly the land which came to the share of Smt. Durgaben Ishwarlal and Smt. Kailashben Ishwarlal. Without joining them as parties in the suit, the appellants have claimed partition of the properties which may not be permissible under the law. It has also been canvassed before the Court by Mr. Without joining them as parties in the suit, the appellants have claimed partition of the properties which may not be permissible under the law. It has also been canvassed before the Court by Mr. Dave on the basis of affidavit-in-reply filed that though the appellants are not in possession of any piece of land bearing Final Plot No. 384/1, 384/2 and 384/3, they executed one agreement to sale in respect of land bearing Survey No. 173 admeasuring about 17,705 Sq.Mtrs., in favour of Mr. Naranbhai Desai and Mr. Pramodbhai Patel on 28.8.2008. The submission is also made to the effect that the said third parties have filed Civil Suit No. 1884 of 2009 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad claiming relief against the Respondent No. 2 restraining him from carrying out construction on Final Plot No. 384/3 admeasuring 877 Sq.Mtrs. This relief is similar to the relief which is claimed by the appellants herein in the present proceedings. Though these events were taken place subsequent to the learned City Civil Judge deciding Exhibit 5 application and strictly speaking, this Court may not take any cognizance of these subsequent events. However, this indicates the conduct of the appellants and while granting equitable relief to the parties their conduct is also required to be taken into consideration as held by the Apex Court Mandali Ranganna & Ors. vs. T. Ramachandra & Ors., reported in AIR 2008 SC 2291 . 19. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that there is no substance or merit in any of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants before the Court. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is in consonance with the settled principles of law and also the said order is found to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs. 20. It is, however, made clear that all these observations and findings arrived at by the trial Court as well as by this Court are of prima facie in nature and the learned trial Judge shall decide the suit on the basis of evidence oral as well as documentary evidence that may be led by the parties before him and without being influenced by any of the observations and/or findings. 21. 21. Since the Appeal is disposed of, the Civil Application does not survive and it is accordingly disposed off. 22. At this stage, Mr. Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants requests the Court to grant stay against the operation of this order and to continue the order of status-quo granted by the Court on 14.9.2009. Mr. Dave, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, however, objected to grant of stay against the operation of this order and to continue the status-quo order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is not inclined to accept the request made by the learned Advocate of the appellants. The request is, therefore, rejected.