ORDER : Leave granted. 2. The decree of dismissal of the suit passed by two courts has been reversed in Second Appeal leading to the institution of the present appeal by the first defendant. 3. The suit in question was filed by the respondent No.1 herein (plaintiff No.2) for partition which was resisted by the appellant (first defendant) on the basis of a document executed by the respondent No.1 - second plaintiff (Exhibit B-1) in favour of the appellant herein and the first plaintiff whereby the second plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) had acknowledged receipt of a sum of Rs. 6,075/- as her share of the family property and further agreed that she will have no right in the remaining Schedule 'B' Property. The learned trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court held that in view of Exhibit B-1 the second plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) had no right to the suit property and that the said document operated as an estoppel against the second plaintiff from claiming any share in the suit property. The learned courts below also held that Exhibit B-1 is a family partition and, therefore, did not require registration under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. Hence the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court which decree was affirmed in the First Appeal. 4. In Second Appeal, the High Court reversed the decree of dismissal by holding that Exhibit B-1 is a document which does not come within the fold of Section 17(2) (v) of the Registration Act, 1908 meaning thereby that it does not stand excluded by virtue of the said provisions of Section 17(2)(v) of the Registration Act, 1908 and, therefore, would require registration and as such could not have been read in evidence. Accordingly, the decree was reversed by the High Court giving rise to the present proceedings. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of due service of notice. 6. Exhibit B-1 document reads as follows : "I have today received from you the sum of Rs. 6,075/- being the amount due to me as my share in the family of my birth and as consideration, etc. for the assignment deed we are this day executing in favour of Lakshmikutty Amma, W/o Chellappan Nair, Plavida House and registering at the Sub Registrar Office, Perumbavoor. 6,075/- being the amount due to me as my share in the family of my birth and as consideration, etc. for the assignment deed we are this day executing in favour of Lakshmikutty Amma, W/o Chellappan Nair, Plavida House and registering at the Sub Registrar Office, Perumbavoor. I agree that I shall not hereafter have any right in the property of my family of birth and that when you demand, I shall execute a release deed concerning my share." 7. As the entire case of the parties revolve around the purport and effect of the said document (Exhibit B-1), we have read and considered the contents of Exhibit B-1 as extracted above. A plain reading thereof would go to show that on receipt of the sum of Rs. 6,075/- which the plaintiff acknowledges to be her share in the family property she had signed the assignment deed in favour of Lakshmikutty Amma and further had agreed that she shall not have any rights in the property of the family. Reading the said document in the aforesaid light, it appears to us that the document (Exhibit B-1) is in the nature of a family settlement acknowledging the fact that the second plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) has ceased to have any further interest in the family property. If that be so, Exhibit B-1 would not require any registration as no title has been transferred on the basis of the said document which merely acknowledges the respective rights of the parties to the family property. Accordingly and on the conclusion that we have reached, the order of the High Court will have to be set aside which we hereby do and the decree of the dismissal of the suit passed by the learned trial Court and the First Appellate Court is restored. 8. The appeal consequently is allowed in the above terms.