JUDGMENT : P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This Appeal Suit has been filed by the first defendant against the Judgment and Decree of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.V), Chennai dated 09.04.2011 in O.S. No. 7520 of 2010 decreeing the suit declaring the settlement deed dated 15.04.1985 as void and declaring the title to the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs and also directed the defendants to deliver vacant possession. 2. The plaint averments are as follows: (i) The suit property bearing Door No.9, New No.20, Thoppu Venkatachalam Street, Triplicane, Chennai-5 originally belonged to Balakrishna Pillai. His wife Papathi Ammal predeceased him. Balakrishna Pillai died in 1952 intestate leaving behind him, his two daughters Amshavathi Ammal and Lakshmi Kanthammal. Amshavathi Ammal died on 25.01.1969 leaving behind her sons, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and daughters Sarojini and D7 to D9. Sarojini died on 18.03.2000. While she was alive all the legal heirs of Amshavathi Ammal and Lakshmi Kanthammal divided the properties and a family arrangement was entered into on 20.07.1972. As per the family arrangement, life interest in the suit property was given to Lakshmi Kanthammal and after her death the property should devolve upon the plaintiffs absolutely. The Nedurambakkam property allotted as per the family arrangement to Lakshmi Kanthammal was sold by her. Like wise Sarojini and her sisters also sold some of the properties given to them under the family arrangement. Thus the family arrangement was acted upon. (ii) Lakshmi Kanthammal executed a settlement deed on 15.04.1985 with respect to the suit property in favour of Sarojini and D7 to D9. Lakshmi Kanthammal without any title executed the settlement deed and therefore the same is void. Sarojini died on 18.03.2000 leaving behind her legal heirs D1 to D6. The plaintiffs have been in possession of the ground floor and first floor. The ground floor shed is in occupation of a tenant and he does not pay rent. D1 to D3 are in occupation of second floor of the suit property. Lakshmi Kanthammal and her sister's daughters Sarojini and D7 to D9 filed R.C.O.P.No.746 of 1988 against the first plaintiff for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and for sub-letting. (iii) The first plaintiff denied the title in the rent control proceedings. The family arrangement was filed and the same has been accepted in the said proceedings and the eviction petition was dismissed. (iii) The first plaintiff denied the title in the rent control proceedings. The family arrangement was filed and the same has been accepted in the said proceedings and the eviction petition was dismissed. The plaintiffs issued lawyer's notice dated 25.10.2004. The defendants 1 and 2 sent a reply dated 08.11.2004. A rejoinder dated 16.12.2004 was sent by the plaintiff. Therefore, the present suit has been filed. 3. In the written statement filed by the first defendant it is averred that the suit properties and other properties originally belonged to Balakrishna Pillai. Relationship between the parties are admitted. Lakshmi Kanthammal got the suit property from her father in 1932 and has been in possession and enjoyment over the statutory period and she settled the suit property on 15.04.1985 in favour of her sister's daughters, namely Sarojini and D7 to D9. The alleged family arrangement is denied. The alleged family arrangement was not acted upon. Nedurambakkam property was also acquired by Lakshmi Kanthammal from her father and it is not by allotment as claimed by the plaintiffs. Thus the suit property is the sridhana property of Lakshmi Kanthammal. Lakshmi Kanthammal filed R.C.O.P.No.746 of 1988 against the first plaintiff on the ground of wilful default. The first plaintiff denied the title of Lakshmi Kanthammal. Hence the RCOP could not be proceeded further. Though the memorandum of family arrangement was filed in R.C.O.P, signature was not admitted by Lakshmi Kanthammal. 4. In the written statement filed by D6 to D9, it is averred that the deed of memorandum was entered into on 20.07.1972 by plaintiffs, defendants 7 to 9, Sarojini and Lakshmi Kanthammal. The suit property purchased by Balakrishna Pillai is described as 'D' schedule property. In the said memorandum Lakshmi Kanthammal was given life interest in the suit property. After her death it should devolve upon the plaintiffs. The eviction petition filed against the first plaintiff by Lakshmi Kanthammal and others was dismissed after contest and no appeal was preferred. The settlement deed was not acted upon and it is not valid in law as Lakshmi Kanthammal has no right to execute the settlement deed. 5. The trial Court framed necessary issues. On the side of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined and 11 Exhibits marked. On the side of the defendants, one witness was examined and 5 Exhibits were marked. 5. The trial Court framed necessary issues. On the side of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined and 11 Exhibits marked. On the side of the defendants, one witness was examined and 5 Exhibits were marked. After analysing both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, the first defendant has filed this Appeal Suit. 6. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant/first defendant and second respondent/third plaintiff died. The appellant's legal representatives have been impleaded as Appellant Nos.2 to 4. The second respondent's legal representatives have been impleaded as Respondent Nos.14 to 16. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that Ex.A.1 is an unstamped and unregistered document and such unregistered document cannot be looked into to prove the terms of the partition. Further he argued that Ex.A.1 is not a genuine document and the same was not acted upon and there is no reference to Ex.A.1 in Ex.A.3, Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3 and in all the sale deeds, all the sharers joined and executed. 8. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents R1, R3 to R5 and R14 to R16 argued that Ex.A.1, the family arrangement is a mere memorandum after the family arrangement had already been made only for the purpose of record and it is a valid document and it is clear from the said document that Lakshmi Kanthammal was given only the life interest in the suit property and she had no title to convey. In the sale deeds subsequently executed, all sharers signed as the vendees insisted so and mere signing by the other sharers does not take away the title given to the plaintiffs as per the family arrangement. 9. The short point that arises in this Appeal Suit is whether Ex.A.1 is a mere memorandum evidencing a family arrangement already entered into for the purpose of record or the document (Ex.A.1) by itself is a family arrangement. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants cited two Division Bench Judgments of this Court (1) Deivanai Ammal v. Meenakshi Ammal [ (2004) 3 MLJ 507 ] and (2) Lakshmipathy v. Chakrapani Reddiar [ (2001) 1 MLJ 1 ]. 11. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants cited two Division Bench Judgments of this Court (1) Deivanai Ammal v. Meenakshi Ammal [ (2004) 3 MLJ 507 ] and (2) Lakshmipathy v. Chakrapani Reddiar [ (2001) 1 MLJ 1 ]. 11. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment, Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, reported in AIR 1976 SC 807 . In the Supreme Court Judgment, it has been held as follows : "10... (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) (Sec.17 (1) (b) ?) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable; ..." 12. There is no quarrel as to the proposition of law between the parties. It is discerned from the above Judgments that where a document is employed to effectuate any of the transactions specified in Section 17 of the Registration Act, such document must be registered and unregistered document cannot be looked into to prove the terms thereon. 13. It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. If a document in the nature of a memorandum evidencing a family arrangement already entered into and document prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon, it need not be stamped or registered. 14. Now this Court has to meticulously analyse Ex.A.1 to see whether the document was prepared evidencing a family arrangement already entered into for the purpose of record or a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement. 14. Now this Court has to meticulously analyse Ex.A.1 to see whether the document was prepared evidencing a family arrangement already entered into for the purpose of record or a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement. Ex.A.1 commences thus: "This Deed of Memorandum executed at Madras this 20th day of July 1972 between.........." It further proceeded thus: "Whereas the parties of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd part - 1 to 8 herein met together as 20.7.72 for the above said purpose wherein by way of family arrangement, they have agreed and took possession of their respective shares thereof on the following terms and conditions. Now this deed of memorandum witnesseth.........." 15. From the recitals of Ex.A.1, it is very clear that the document is a mere memorandum prepared evidencing the family arrangement already entered into for the purpose of record. Therefore the same need not be stamped and registered. Thus the document Ex.A.1 is admissible in evidence. 16. Lakshmi Kanthammal along with her sister's daughter, namely Sarojini and D7 to D9 filed eviction proceedings against the first plaintiff herein. The appellant/first defendant claims title to the suit property under the settlement deed executed by the above said Lakshmi Kanthammal. Lakshmi Kanthammal before the Rent Control Court in the above said eviction proceedings has deposed that the signature found in the memorandum (Ex.A.1 in the suit) is that of her. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that Ex.A.1, family arrangement memorandum is not genuine cannot be accepted. 17. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3 are the sale deeds with respect to other properties. Since all the parties joined and executed the sale deeds it cannot be said that family arrangement was not acted upon. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents, all the parties joined in the execution of the sale deeds, as the vendees insisted. 18. No doubt the defendant can take conflicting pleas. Here in this case in the pleadings, the first defendant took a stand that Lakshmi Kanthammal acquired the suit property from her father in 1932 and the same is her stridhana property. But in the reply notice, Ex.A.5, dated 08.11.2004, the first defendant stated that Lakshmi Kanthammal acquired the property under the partition deed of the year 1952. Here in this case in the pleadings, the first defendant took a stand that Lakshmi Kanthammal acquired the suit property from her father in 1932 and the same is her stridhana property. But in the reply notice, Ex.A.5, dated 08.11.2004, the first defendant stated that Lakshmi Kanthammal acquired the property under the partition deed of the year 1952. In the settlement deed, Ex.B.3 also there is recital to the effect that the suit property was allotted to her under 1952 partition deed. The partition deed has not been filed to show the partition between sisters and their father as alleged. There is also no evidence to show that the suit property is her stridhana property. When family arrangement as per Ex.A.1 has been established, the above contention of the appellant/first defendant is to be brushed aside. The settlement deed has been executed by Lakshmi Kanthammal without any title over the suit property and therefore the settlement deed is void. 19. The trial Court has rightly decreed the suit and this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and accordingly, the Appeal Suit is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, this Appeal Suit is dismissed with costs, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 09.04.2011 made in O.S. No. 7520 of 2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.