JUDGMENT : Ajit Borthakur, J. This First appeal under section 96 of the C.P. Code is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 10.01.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup at Guwahati in Title Suit No. 169/06, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant. The suit was instituted for partition of the joint properties, described in the schedule to the plaint. 2. The plaintiff/appellant's case, precisely, is that late Rajendra Narayan Deb, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff and the defendant/respondents herein, owned and possessed various plots of land in and around Guwahati. He died in the year, 1933, leaving behind his wife Lakhipriya Devi, two sons, namely, Jatindra Narayan Dev and Late Dwijendra Narayan Dev. Rajendra Narayan Dev also left a daughter Madhuri Devi Choudhury. Late Dwijendra Narayan Deb is the father of the plaintiff as well as the predecessor in interest of the defendants. In the year, 1965, the legal heirs of late Rajendra Narayan Deb had an amicable family settlement in respect of his property, which was reduced into writing, being the deed No. 2894, dated 19.06.65. Thereafter, those legal heirs continued to occupy their respective shares of the properties. On 01.04.1979 late Dwijendra Narayan Deb died leaving behind the plaintiff/appellant and the defendant/respondents as his legal heirs. At that time, late Dwijendra Narayan Deb had left behind 41 bighas 16 lechas of land in total. In fact, during his life time, late Dwijendra Narayan Deb had sold away 9 bighas 2 kathas and 3 lechas of land of Dag No. 3 of K.R Patta No. 102 and 3 bighas 4 kathas 10 lechas of Dag No. 19 (old)/ 104 (new) of K.P. Patta No. 15 of village Maidamgaon out of the aforesaid 41 bighas 16 lechas of land. It may be mentioned that an area of land measuring 7 bighas 16 lechas, out of Dag No. 403 (old)/ 264 (new) of K.P. Patta No. 15, out of the aforesaid 41 bighas 16 lechas of land was used by the family for construction of residential flats which were sold out to different purchasers. In the year 1990, the wife of late Dwijendra Narayan Deb i.e. the defendant No. 1 Suprabha Devi gifted 1 katha of land under Dag No. 265 of K.P. Patta No. 50 of village Maidamgaon to the present plaintiff/appellant by executing a registered gift deed being No. 5651, dated 23.11.1990. In the year 1990, the wife of late Dwijendra Narayan Deb i.e. the defendant No. 1 Suprabha Devi gifted 1 katha of land under Dag No. 265 of K.P. Patta No. 50 of village Maidamgaon to the present plaintiff/appellant by executing a registered gift deed being No. 5651, dated 23.11.1990. The plaintiff accepted the said gift. The plaintiff/appellant constructed garage for repairing of vehicles over that 1 katha of land. In the meantime, by virtue of inheritance, the plaintiff/appellant had inherited 1 katha 2 lechas of land of Dag No. 264 (old)/ 3668 (new) of K.P. Patta No. 50 (old)/ 349 (new) of village Maidamgaon. The plaintiff/appellant got himself mutated in respect of this plot of land and has been possessing the same. He has constructed some houses over those plots of land, which are let out to different tenants. In this way, the total land that remained in joint possession of the heirs of late Dewijendra Narayan Dev amounted to 19 bighas 8 lechas. The plaintiff/appellant stated that 19 bighas 8 lechas of land is a joint property and therefore, he is entitled to l/4th share of that property. 3. The defendant/respondents contested the suit by filing a joint written statement. They have denied that the land measuring 19 bighas 8 lechas is in joint possession of the parties. Regarding the said 1 katha 2 lechas of land covered by Dag No. 264 (old)/ 3668 (new) of K.P. Patta No. 50 (old)/ 349 (new), the defendant/respondents admitted that the said plot of land fell into the share of the plaintiff/appellant on the basis of a partition between the plaintiff/appellant and his two brothers i.e. the defendant/respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The defendant respondents contended that the heirs of late Dwijendra Narayan Dev had effected a family settlement on 29.01.1999, which was modified on 31.01.1999. On this ground, the defendant/respondents denied the claim of the plaintiff/appellant that he is entitled to partition of the properties. The ' defendant/respondents further contended that by virtue of the family settlement Suprabha Devi got schedule 'C' and schedule 'D' properties. In this way, the plaintiff/appellant got five bighas one katha 16 Vi lechas land covered by Dag Nos. 261,264 and 264 of K.P. Patta No. 50. The ' defendant/respondents further contended that by virtue of the family settlement Suprabha Devi got schedule 'C' and schedule 'D' properties. In this way, the plaintiff/appellant got five bighas one katha 16 Vi lechas land covered by Dag Nos. 261,264 and 264 of K.P. Patta No. 50. The defendant/respondent stated that according to the family settlement, dated 29.01.1999, a plot of land measuring 4 bighas, covered by Dag No. 264 of K. P. Patta No. 50 was kept reserved for M/s Dev Real Estate. The defendant/respondents admitted the factum of gift made by Suprabha Devi in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. The said settlement also declared that another plot of land measuring 3 kathas 18 lechas also went to the share of the plaintiff/appellant. The defendant/respondents stated that on the basis of the family settlement, dated 29.01.1999, the parties had acted upon the same and therefore, the plaintiff/appellant is no longer entitled to claim partition of the family property or to resile from that. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned trial Court formulated the following issues :- "(1) Is there any cause of action for the suit? (2) Whether the suit is maintainable? (3) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? (4) Whether the suit properties covered under different dags and pattas left behind by one late Dwijendra Narayan Dev is a joint family properties and if so whether such properties were amicable partitioned between the concerned parties as per terms of family settlement arrived at between them? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have 1/4th share of the suit properties? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? (7) To what other reliefs the parties are entitled?" 5. In course of trial, the plaintiff/appellant examined four witnesses. The defendant/respondents, on the other hand, examined two witnesses. The learned Trial Court in consideration of the evidence on record, oral and documentary, having dismissed the suit, the plaintiff has preferred the instant appeal, on the grounds, inter-alia, that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the alleged deeds of family partition vide Exts. The defendant/respondents, on the other hand, examined two witnesses. The learned Trial Court in consideration of the evidence on record, oral and documentary, having dismissed the suit, the plaintiff has preferred the instant appeal, on the grounds, inter-alia, that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the alleged deeds of family partition vide Exts. 'Ka' and 'Kha' are not enforceable in law for want of registration under the Registration Act; that the signature of the plaintiff/appellant was taken by the defendant/respondents, when he was suffering from illness, that is, not in a position to understand whether anything was written therein or not and that the partition agreement, dated 29.01.1999 was only a draft partition agreement and further, that no agreement of partition was drafted on 31.01.1999; that the learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate that the plaintiff/appellant and his other witnesses have categorically deposed that 19 bighas 8 lechas of land is the Joint property of the plaintiff/appellant and the defendant/respondents and further, that he has 1/4th share of the same as right of inheritance, which is amounting to 4 bighas 3 kathas 17 lechas, but actually given only 1 katha 2 lechas of land which is not the 1/4th share of the ancestral joint property; that no heir can be deprived of the property of his father by giving major share to other legal heirs except the ratio of shares under the Hindu Law, because any instrument which is not in accordance with law has no legal force; that although the defendant/respondents have pleaded that the gifted plot of land was dedicated from the share of the plaintiff/appellant is not justified under the law and that the plea that the suit land was exchanged with the land located at Hatigaon is given to the plaintiff/appellant has not been proved by evidence and further, under Section 118 read with Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act such exchange with respect to immovable properties valued more than Rs. 100/- can only be effected by registered instrument only; that DW. 1 admitted in cross-examination that the Dag Nos. and patta Nos. were cut and rewritten in Exts. 'Ka' and 'Kha' and at the same time, stated that they have no objection if the plaintiff/appellant gets 1/4th share of their father's property. 100/- can only be effected by registered instrument only; that DW. 1 admitted in cross-examination that the Dag Nos. and patta Nos. were cut and rewritten in Exts. 'Ka' and 'Kha' and at the same time, stated that they have no objection if the plaintiff/appellant gets 1/4th share of their father's property. Hence, prayed to set aside the aforesaid impugned judgment and decree and decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. 6. Heard Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.J. Bordoloi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. The learned Civil Judge held that there is no cause of action and the suit is not maintainable in law in view of the settled position of law that a family settlement need not be registered and such family settlement should always be favoured and therefore, none of the parties to the lis including the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to deviate from the aforesaid family settlements vide Exts. 'Ka' and 'Kha' by the principle of estoppel as they acted thereon and accordingly, answered the issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 in the negative, while the issue No. 4 in the affirmative. The learned trial Court found that it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff/appellant, apart from receiving a particular plot of land as gift and another plot of land by virtue of inheritance, has received some other land by virtue of the said family settlements. The learned Civil Judge found that Ext. 1, the family settlement deed No. 2894, dated 19.06.65, arrived at among the legal heirs of late Rajendra Narayan Deb, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff/appellant and the defendant/respondents, being an admitted/undisputed document, the same need not be taken into consideration in the suit. 8. On scrutiny of the pleadings and the evidence on record, this Court finds that late Rajendra Narayan Deb, the predecessor-in interest of the parties to the suit, owned and possessed a vast area of land in and around Guwahati and after his death in the year 1933, his wife late Lakhipriya Devi, sons, namely, late Jatindra Narayan Dev, late Dwijendra Narayan Dev, i.e. the father of defendant/respondent Nos.2 and their mother-defendant/respondent No.1 to the instant suit and daughter Smt. Madhuri Devi Choudhury amicably settled the property left by said late Rajendra Narayan Deb vide Ext. 1, the family settlement. 1, the family settlement. Therefore, in the instant suit, the landed property left by said late Dwijendra Narayan Deb, measuring about 19 bighas 8 lechas, is in dispute amongst his legal heirs, out of the aforesaid inherited suit land, valued at approximately Rs. 2 crores, located at different places under Beltola Mouza, Guwahati, described in the 4 (four) schedules A, B, C & D to the plaint, out of which, the plaintiff/appellant has claimed 1/4th share thereof by way of partition. 9. The evidence of PW. 1 Trideep Narayan Deb, the plaintiff/appellant, herein, reveals that he received 1 (one) katha of land by way of gift, dated 23.11.1990, from his mother, the defendant No. 1 Mrs. Suprabha Devi vide Ext. 3 and also inherited another plot of land measuring 1 katha 2 lechas and accordingly, his name was mutated in land records and paid land revenue vide Ext. 4, the certificate issued by the Settlement Officer, Guwahati in respect of the gifted land, Ext. 5, the Katcha Patta, Ext. 6, the land revenue paying receipts. According to him, the remaining total land area, measuring 19 bighas 8 lechas, has remained in the joint ownership and possession of him and the defendant/respondents in different modes such as construction of houses, raising other structures, tank, trees etc. as heirs of late Dwijendra Narayan Deb, described in the schedule to the plaint and shown in Ext. 7, the sketch map. His evidence further reveals that he is entitled to the 1/4th share of the aforesaid suit property, which is not yet partitioned. 10. From cross-examination, it appears, inter-alia, that he could not say what was the share of land that had fallen to their deceased father, namely, late Dwijendra Narayan Deb, but admitted Ext. 'ka', the family partition deed, dated 29.01.99, bearing his signatures Ext. 'Ka' (1) and 'Ka' (2). However, he further stated that he put his signatures thereon at a time, when he was sick and further admitted Ext. 'Kha' another family partition deed, dated 31.01.99, wherein, Ext. 'Kha' (1) is his signature. He has admitted that in Ext. 4(1), there is mention that as per possession and partition, the mutation was granted in his name in respect of land measuring 2.95 Are, but could not say whether separate pattas were granted to their mother and brothers. 'Kha' another family partition deed, dated 31.01.99, wherein, Ext. 'Kha' (1) is his signature. He has admitted that in Ext. 4(1), there is mention that as per possession and partition, the mutation was granted in his name in respect of land measuring 2.95 Are, but could not say whether separate pattas were granted to their mother and brothers. At another place, the plaintiff appellant in his evidence expressed ignorance as to whether on those partition deeds, he and the other defendant/respondents had signed or not. 11. PW. 2 Tapash Saikia, who is a classmate of the plaintiff/appellant (PW. 1) deposed that as stated by PW. 1, in the year 1999 when his signatures were obtained on settlement agreements, the plaintiff/appellant was in hospital and was not in a conscious state of mind and that since the year 1998, he has been residing outside his paternal house. PW. 3 Mukib Ali, who owns an electrical shop near the suit land, deposed to have heard from the plaintiff/appellant (P W. 1) that there had been no partition in respect of their suit land, which is a joint property and that since November, 2001, he has been not allowed to [enter into the suit land and further, stated in the cross examination that the defendant/respondents constructed their houses on the suit land. PW. 4 Promode Mazumdar has corroborated the evidence of PW. 1, i.e. the plaintiff/appellant and further, stated that the entire suit land is surrounded by brick boundary walls and there are two Assam Type houses, one water tank (fishery) and valuable trees etc. 12. Thus, from the above evidence of the PWs, it transpires that though the plaintiff/appellant admitted amicable family partition of the suit land on 21.09.99 and 31.01.99 vide Ext. 'Ka' and Ext. 'Kha', however, disputed that he put his signatures thereon knowingly due to sickness, for which he was in unconscious state i.e. when he was not in a sound mind and health. 'Ka' and Ext. 'Kha', however, disputed that he put his signatures thereon knowingly due to sickness, for which he was in unconscious state i.e. when he was not in a sound mind and health. However, there is no documentary evidence to show that on the aforesaid two dates of 21.09.99 and 31.01.99, the plaintiff/appellant was sick and as a result of his sickness, he was not in sound mind and health, whereas he instituted the instant suit belatedly on 17.08.06, despite knowing the fact that his signatures were obtained allegedly in the year 1999 on the family settlement deeds, aforementioned, when he was allegedly sick and not in a sound mind and health. Both the aforesaid documents Ext. 'Ka' & 'Kha' and pursuant thereto mutation in revenue records being effected and respective pattas being issued vide Exts. 'Ga', 'Gha', 'Unga' and 'Sa', the certificates issued by the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Guwahati have come in the evidence of DW. 1 Indrajit Narayan Deb, the defendant/respondent No. 1, herein. The DW. 1 has, however, stated in cross examination, that they had no objection to the claim of the plaintiff/appellant to 1/4th share of their father's property, but could not say how much property was left by their father. The evidence of DW. 1 does reveal that pursuant to the family partition, aforementioned, each of the defendant/respondents has been in physical possession thereof. The evidence of DW. 2 Parag Hazarika shows that he was the scribe of the Exts. 'Ka' & 'Kha', and wrote the same on the dictation of Advocate Suren Bora, who was not examined in the suit, after amicable oral settlement arrived at among the parties in respect of the suit property. 13. At this stage, Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant submitted that a family settlement must invariably be registered when such settlement is reduced into writing and in such a case, the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights of the family members in immovable properties. Mr. Ali further submitted that when the plaintiff/appellant did not sign in the family settlement document voluntarily and has not been acted upon as it has come in evidence, the same cannot be treated as a valid document to be relied on. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Kale & Ors. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Kale & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors., reported in AIR 1976 SC 807 . 14. Per contra, Mr. R.J. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the defendant/respondents submitted that both the family settlements vide Exts. 'Ka' & 'Kha' were received in evidence without any objection from the plaintiff/appellant's side and this fact of family settlement has been deliberately suppressed by the Plaintiff/appellant in his pleading and further, has not pleaded the same to be forged documents. 15. According to Mr. Bordoloi, a family settlement need not necessarily be registered as it has been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Anup Kumar Deb Barma v. Ahindra Kr. Deb Barma & Ors., reported in 2008(4) GLT 285: (2009)2 GLR 688. 16. In the case of Kale (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that even if the family settlement is not registered, it would operate as a complete estoppel and the same can be taken into consideration as a piece of evidence. In Anup Kumar Debbarma case (Supra), a Division Bench of this Court also held that a family settlement need not necessarily be registered and such settlement in the absence of any ambiguity should always be favoured. 17. In the instant suit, on scrutiny of the evidence, as stated above, it is amply clear that Ext. 'Ka' & 'Kha' are hand written by D W. 2 and all the brothers and their mother (Defendant/respondent No. 1) signed on each and every page thereof. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the said two family settlements were forged, the same cannot be disbelieved on trivial disproved grounds like obtaining of signatures of the plaintiff/appellant thereon when he was sick and when it is proved by evidence that the family settlement in respect of share of land devolved on them on death of said late Dwijendra Narayan Deb, the plaintiff/appellant is estopped from raising the plea of invalidity of the family settlements, which were followed by mutation in land records in terms thereof. 18. Thus, on conjoint reading of both the documents Exts. 18. Thus, on conjoint reading of both the documents Exts. 'Ka' & 'Kha' along with the aforesaid connected exhibited documents and the evidence of both the sides, discussed above, this Court finds nothing to disbelieve the authenticity of the amicable family settlements in respect of the suit land devolved on both the parties being the legal heirs of late Dwijendra Narayan Deb and pursuant thereto, the mutation of the respective shares in the revenue records in terms of the family settlements. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff/appellant who was a signatory to the family settlements, aforementioned, cannot now deviate from the terms thereof when both parties acted thereon. 19. Be that as it may, in the backdrop of the pleadings of the parties, who are family members, this Court is of the opinion that to do away with complete justice to them and to prevent multiplicity of the suit in future, it is desirable to ascertain the actual physical possession over the suit land by each of the family members i.e. the parties to the family settlements by way of a local investigation under Rule 9 of Order XXVI of the C.R Code. 20. For the reasons set forth above, the appeal stands partly allowed and the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the suit is remanded back to the learned trial Court with a direction to issue commission to make local investigation into the actual present possession enjoyed by each of the parties to the amicable settlements over the suit land/property, proved to have arrived at by them, under suitable questions of reference to be determined by the learned Court below, which is/are found to be requisite and proper in the attending facts and circumstances of the suit to bring finality to the adjudication of the issues between the parties, who are belonged to the same family after affording opportunity of being heard and dispose of the suit afresh, in accordance with law.