JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—This is a defendant’s second appeal against the judgement and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 2.3.1978 by which the plaintiff’s first appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed in toto. The suit was filed with a relief that the gift deed, as was executed by the plaintiff No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 2 to 6, be declared null and void on the ground that there was a family settlement dated 7.1.1973 by which the plaintiff No. 2 (father) had divided five bighas of his property between the plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 (sons) and therefore the gift deed dated 23.3.1973 by which the entire property of the plaintiff No. 2 was gifted to defendant Nos. 2 to 6 (sons of defendant No. 1) could not have been executed. Further case of the plaintiff No. 1 was that the gift deed in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 dated 23.3.1973 was obtained from the plaintiff No. 2 by misrepresentation, fraud and by exercising undue influence. 2. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and cancelled the gift deed. The instant second appeal was entertained after framing the following substantial questions of law : 1. Because the family settlement paper No. 51 -A1 dated 7/1/1973 was unregistered document and as such it was inadmissible in evidence nor the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in law could derive any right on the basis of the said family settlement in as much as the said family settlement clearly created right in plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and as such it required registration under law. 2. Because the findings of the Lower Appellate Court that the gift deed dated 23/3/1973 was vitiated by fraud is absolutely erroneous in law in as much as the doner Sri Shiv Lal categorically stated that he had executed the said gift deed without any fraud being played upon him and out of his own free will and had put the donees i.e. the appellants No. 2 to 6 in possession of the gifted property. 3. The appellants who are the defendant Nos. 3. The appellants who are the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 (Donees) submitted that the father of the plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1, who has been arrayed in the suit as plaintiff No. 2, Sri Shiv Lal in the presence of a number of witnesses had tried to transfer 5 bighas of his land to his two sons, the plaintiff Nos. 1 and defendant No. 1 by a document dated 7.1.1973. They submitted, that though, in the suit the plaintiff No. 1 has referred to this document dated 7.1.1973 as a family settlement, it is in fact a document by which 5 bighas of land of the plaintiff No. 2 was actually sought to be transferred to the plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1. If the document itself is perused, it would be clear that it is not a family settlement nor is it a memorandum of partition but is a document by which the plaintiff No. 2 has endeavored to transfer 5 bighas of his land to plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1. The Appellants’ counsel read out the following portion of the document dated 7.1.1973 which reads as under: ^^eSus vius nkuks yM+ds ¼izHkq flag o cuh flag½ dks viuh dqN tehu pan iz?kkuksa ,oa iapksa ds lkeus vk/kh&vk/kh ckaV nh gS vkSj vius [kkuxh [kpZ ds fy, ikap ch?kk dPph Hkwfe j[k yh gSA** 4. This document, the appellant submits, is neither a family settlement nor a memorandum of partition but it is a document by which rights of ownership accrue to the plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 for the first time and thus it was a document which was compulsorily registereable under Section 17 (1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and that if it was not registered then under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, it was not admissible in evidence. 5. Further, the appellants have argued that after the unregistered document was allegedly executed, the plaintiff No. 2 executed the gift deed in favour of the appellants i.e. defendant Nos. 2 to 6 which was dated 23.3.1973 and was also registered. 5. Further, the appellants have argued that after the unregistered document was allegedly executed, the plaintiff No. 2 executed the gift deed in favour of the appellants i.e. defendant Nos. 2 to 6 which was dated 23.3.1973 and was also registered. The appellants have further submitted that after the suit was filed on 2.6.1973, on 10.10.1973 the plaintiff No. 2 made his statement under Order X Rule 2 of the C.P.C. and denied the execution of the family settlement and also admitted the execution of the gift deed. The appellants have, thereafter, submitted that no right accrued to the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 by the existence of the unregistered document and the only document by which any transfer of interest actually took place was the registered gift deed and that it could not, therefore, have been cancelled and the appellants should remain the bhumidhars of the whole of the property of the plaintiff No. 2 as was gifted to them. The appellant counsel submitted that it was strange that the First Appellate Court decided the case on the basis of the document dated 7.1.1973 (paper No. 51A) as at the very first glance, it undeniably is a document which gives out the intention of its author which was to transfer a certain portion of his land to his two sons. When that was the case then there was no option with him but to get the same registered and by not doing so the document was nothing else but a waste paper in the eyes of law, and a futile attempt has been made by the First Appellate Court in giving undue importance to it. The appellants submitted that the paper No. 51A should not have even been looked into as it was definitely not a memorandum of partition or a family settlement which was chronicling certain antecedent rights. 6. In reply, the plaintiff No. 1 primarily argued that the document dated 7.1.1973 was, in fact, a family arrangement and that it was not to be registered. 6. In reply, the plaintiff No. 1 primarily argued that the document dated 7.1.1973 was, in fact, a family arrangement and that it was not to be registered. It was a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had taken place long back and that, in fact, the document dated 7.1.1973 was only an application filed before the Pargana - Adhikari, Tehsil - Atrauli, District - Aligarh and had only tried to bring on record certain family settlements which had taken place at some earlier point of time. 7. The respondent-plaintiff No. 1 further submitted that the gift deed was a result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence because the plaintiff No. 2 immediately before the execution of the gift deed had deposited an amount equivalent to 20 times the revenue payable and had become a bhumidhar on that very date, meaning thereby that things were done very hastily and thus the gift deed had to be declared null and void. 8. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, I find that the first appeal was wrongly allowed and the suit was, therefore, wrongly decreed. The document dated 7.1.1973 by which rights of ownership were transferred to the plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 had to be compulsorily registered as has been observed by Supreme Court in Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1976 SC (AIR) 807, that a family settlement had to be compulsorily registered unless it was such a settlement which was only regarding a family settlement which had already taken place at an earlier point of time and when it was only bringing on record some antecedent title which was always there. In the instant case, the plaintiff No. 2 who was the father of the plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 alone was the owner of the land in question. There was no antecedent title vested in plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 before the document dated 7.1.1973 was executed and thus a plain reading of the document dated 7.1.1973 reveals that rights were flowing to the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 because of that document, meaning thereby it had to be compulsorily registered and without the existence of the document dated 7.1.1973 the two sons would not be owners of the property at all. Thus, the substantial questions of law No. 1 as has been framed by this Court is, accordingly, answered and it is held that the document dated 7.1.1973 through which the plaintiff No. 1 was deriving his right of ownership had to be compulsorily registered and in the absence of registration it was a nullity in the eyes of law. 9. As the gift deed dated 23.3.1973 was a registered document and the plaintiff No. 2 himself on 10.10.1973 admitted the execution of it under Order X Rule 2 of C.P.C., it can be safely concluded that the document was not a result of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence. The circumstance that the execution of the gift deed immediately followed the depositing of the twenty times of the revenue payable also is not such a circumstance which could lead any prudent person to believe that there was fraud, misrepresentation or any exercise of undue influence. 10. The substantial question of law No. 2 as had been framed at the time of admission is also thus, accordingly, answered. 11. Submission of the appellant that the suit was barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act also has substance. The further relief of possession which should have been prayed for by the plaintiff was not prayed for and thus, the suit was barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act also. This is what has been said in Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra and another, AIR 1993 SC 957 . 12. For what has been stated above, the Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 2.3.1978 is set aside and the Original Suit No. 188 of 1973 is dismissed.