JUDGMENT : 1. This Second Appeal, filed by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, is against the judgment and decree dated 17.4.2009 passed by Upper District Judge, FTC, Rajnandgaon (CG), in Civil Appeal No.32-A/2007, which in turn arises out of judgment and decree dated 06.5.2005 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Ambagarh Chowki, Dist. Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 23A/99. 2. By impugned judgment and decree, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal only with respect of part of the suit land bearing Khasra No.53/1, area 0.25 decimal and dismissed plaintiffs’/appellants first appeal with regard to remaining suit land and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, which had dismissed plaintiffs’ suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. (For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status and ranking shown in the suit before the trial Court.) 3. So the question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the two Courts below were justified in dismissing plaintiffs’ suit for declaration and recovery of possession in relation to suit land except Khasra No.53/1 area 0.25 decimal? 4. The appeal was admitted for final hearing on following two substantial questions of law:- i. Whether the finding of ownership of disputed land in favour of respondents No.1 to 3 is perverse? ii. Whether both the Courts below have committed illegality in not holding that no compromise can be effected relating to the land of minor? 5. Facts of the case required to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal are as under: 6. Plaintiff No.1 namely Ganga Singh (father of plaintiff’s 2 to 6) and defendants 1 to 3 are real brothers. Plaintiff No.1 Ganga Singh purchased agricultural land situated at Village Chikhlee bearing Khasra No.13/1 area 0.62 decimal, 13/3 area 0.74 decimal, 53/1 area 0.24 decimal, 57/3 area 0.13 decimal, 172/1 area 1.28 acre, 172/3 area 1.08 acre, 172/7 area 0.48 decimal, 182/3 area 0.28 decimal, 182/5 area 1.88 acre, 182/9 area 0.80 decimal, 342/11 area 0.26 decimal, total khasra No.11 total area 7.79 acre in the name of his sons, i.e. plaintiffs 2 to 6 by a registered sale deed from his uncle Ram Singh on 05.02.1998. Thereafter they have taken the possession of the said land and moved an application for mutation before Gram Panchayat Chikhlee. Thereafter they have taken the possession of the said land and moved an application for mutation before Gram Panchayat Chikhlee. Since the defendants 1 to 3 have raised objection, the matter was referred to Nayab Tahsildar, Ambagarh Chowki. The evidence of Ram Singh (seller of the land) was recorded wherein he has stated that he sold the aforesaid land to plaintiffs 2 to 6 by a registered sale deed with his free will. During the pendency of the revenue proceeding, Ram Singh died. Thereafter defendants 1 to 3 pressurized and threatened Plaintiff No.1 and obtained his signature in 4-5 papers and under the pressure they got executed settlement deed and got recorded the evidence of Plaintiff No.1 with regard to compromise proceedings and by using the said papers, land purchased by the plaintiff bearing Khasra No.13/1 area 0.62 decimal, 13/3 area 0.74 decimal, 57/3 area 0.13 decimal, 182/9 area 0.80 decimal, 53/1 area 0.24 decimal total khasra No.5, total area 2.53 acres has been mutated in their name, this land is said to be suit land. Against which, the plaintiffs filed civil suit bearing No.23A/2007 before Civil Judge Class-I, Ambagarh Chowki, Distt. Rajnandgaon for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of aforesaid suit land. The defendants filed their written statement along with counter claim/counter suit stating inter alia that Late Ram Singh was their uncle (Chacha) and he died issue less. Ram Singh had distributed share of his land to all four brothers i.e. plaintiff No.1 and defendants 1 to 3, as per his Will, but getting undue advantage of illness of Ramsingh, plaintiff Ganga Singh got executed the sale deed from him in the name of his sons (plaintiffs 2 to 6), that too, without paying any sale consideration. It has been further stated that, suit land was given to the defendants on the basis of family settlement arrived at between plaintiffs and defendants. Therefore, the sale deed executed by Ram Singh in favour of plaintiffs 2 to 6 is illegal and defendants be declared owner of the suit land. 7. It has been further stated that, suit land was given to the defendants on the basis of family settlement arrived at between plaintiffs and defendants. Therefore, the sale deed executed by Ram Singh in favour of plaintiffs 2 to 6 is illegal and defendants be declared owner of the suit land. 7. The learned trial Court after framing issues recorded the evidence of both the parties and after evaluating the evidence, vide judgment and decree dated 06.5.2005 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs holding therein that although Ram Singh had executed sale deed in favour of plaintiffs 2 to 6, but Naib Tahsildar has partitioned the suit land in favour of defendants on the basis of family settlement arrived at between the parties and granted decree in favour of defendants by declaring them owner of the suit land. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiffs have filed first appeal bearing No.32A/07 before the Upper District Judge, FTC, Rajnandgaon and the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.4.2009 dismissed the plaintiffs’ first appeal, except the suit land bearing Khasra No.53/1 area 0.24 decimal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court with regard to remaining suit land, against which present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submit that the suit land along with other land was purchased by plaintiff No.1 in the name of his sons (plaintiffs 2 to 6) from his uncle Ram Singh by a registered sale deed (Ex.P/1) on 05.02.1998. Therefore, the defendants have no right on the suit land. It is further submitted that both the Courts below have granted decree in favour of defendants in respect of suit land only on the basis of alleged settlement deed (Ex. D/2 & D/4), but that settlement had been got executed by defendants by using muscle power and threat given by them to plaintiff Ganga Singh. It is further submitted that both the Courts below have granted decree in favour of defendants in respect of suit land only on the basis of alleged settlement deed (Ex. D/2 & D/4), but that settlement had been got executed by defendants by using muscle power and threat given by them to plaintiff Ganga Singh. It is further submitted that only on the basis of that illegal settlement, Naib Tahsildar Ambagarh Chouki passed order dated 30.01.1999 in Revenue Case No.21A/6/97-98 and on that strength, the defendants have mutated the land in their favour, which is void and illegal, as that alleged settlement deed has been executed by plaintiff No.1 Ganga Singh under coercion and unregistered settlement deed which cannot override registered sale deed (Ex-P/1) by which the plaintiffs 2 to 6 have obtained legal title. It is further submitted that while execution of the alleged settlement deed (Ex.D/2 & D/4) on 19.01.1999, plaintiffs 4 to 6 were minor, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 8(2)(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, natural guardian (Ganga Singh/plaintiff No.1) also cannot transfer any part of the immovable property of the minor without previous permission of the Court, and no such permission was obtained by plaintiff No.1 from the Court. Hence, on that count also alleged compromise deed (Ex. D/2 & D/4) has no legal value. Therefore, it is prayed that judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below, being perverse and illegal, are liable to be set aside and decree may be granted to the plaintiffs. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for defendants 1 to 3 would submit that land on which the plaintiffs are raising their claim was of their uncle Ram Singh, who died issueless. Ram Singh had distributed his land between plaintiff No.1 and defendants 1 to 3 as per his Will, but since he was old and sick person having various ailments, therefore, by getting undue benefit, the plaintiff No.1 had got executed the sale deed from Ram Singh in the name of plaintiffs 2 to 6, but no sale consideration was given to him in this regard. Therefore, alleged sale deed is illegal and does not confer any right to the plaintiffs. Therefore, alleged sale deed is illegal and does not confer any right to the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that during the pendency of revenue case No. 21A/6/97-98, there was a family settlement between plaintiff No.1 and defendants 1 to 3, which was reduced in writing as Ex-D/2 & D/4. Plaintiff No.1 Ganga Singh had also accepted that settlement and put his signature on aforesaid settlement deed and he had also made statement in favour of that settlement before Naib Tahsildar, Ambagarh Chouki. On the basis of that settlement, the suit land were given to the defendants 1 to 3 therefore, that settlement is binding upon the plaintiffs and now they cannot deny their consent and they are bound upon the principle of estoppal. It is further submitted that both the Courts below have concurrently and rightly held that defendants 1 to 3 are title holders of the suit land on the basis of that family settlement arrived at between the parties. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. In this regard, learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance in the cases of Dattatraya vs. Rangnath Gopalrao Kawathekar, (1972) 4 SCC 181 and Tek Bhadur Bhujil vs. Debi Singh Bhujil, 1966 AIR (SC) 292. 10. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 11. It is not in dispute that late Ram Singh was the uncle (Chacha) of plaintiff No.1 and defendants 1 to 3 and he executed sale deed (Ex-P/1) dated 05.02.2019 in favour of plaintiffs 2 to 6, who are the sons of plaintiff No.1 Ganga Singh, in respect of suit land along with other land. The aforesaid fact has also been stated by Ganga Singh (PW-1) and Ramkishan (PW-2) in their deposition which has not been controverted by the defendants in their pleadings as well as defendant Jamuna Prasad (DW-1) in his deposition also. The defendants have alleged aforesaid sale deed on the ground that while execution of the aforesaid sale deed (Ex-P/1), health of Ram Singh was not well as he was suffering from various ailments and taking advantage of the same, plaintiff No.1 Ganga Singh got executed aforesaid sale deed in favour of his sons from Ram Singh, that too, without paying any sale consideration. But, this allegation of the defendants has not been held proved by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court and issue in this regard has been decided by both the Courts below against defendants. Therefore, it is proved that late Ram Singh had executed registered sale deed (Ex-P/1) in respect of suit land along with his other land in favour of plaintiffs 2 to 6. 12. It was also claim of the defendants that late Ram Singh had executed registered will (Ex-D/3) and on the basis of that will, he had distributed his land total khasra No.11 area 7.79 acres to plaintiff No.1 and defendants 1 to 3. The learned trial Court had also framed issue No.6 in this regard, but, after consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, it has been held by it that, since Ram Singh himself had, executed registered sale deed (Ex-P/1) on 05.02.1998 in favour of plaintiffs 2 to 6, which he had also supported in his statement made before Naib Tahsildar, hence, alleged Will (Ex-D/2) dated 19.8.1992 executed by Ram Singh lost its validity, therefore, defendants are not entitled to get the title over the suit land on the basis of alleged Will dated 19.8.1992 (Ex-D/3). 13. Thus, challenging illegality of the sale deed (Ex-P/1) executed by late Ram Singh and Will deed (Ex-D/3) allegedly executed by Ram Singh have been answered negative by both the Courts below and defendants have not challenged both the findings, therefore, it attains finality. 14. The learned trial Court as well as the appellate court granted impugned decree in respect of suit land in favour of the defendants 1 to 3 on the ground that there had been settlement (Ex-D/2 & D/4) reduced in writing on 19.01.1999 which had also been supported by plaintiff No.1 Ganga Singh in his statement (Ex-D/1) recorded before Naib Tahsildar and on the basis that family settlement, Naib Tahsildar Ambagarh Chouki vide order dated 30.01.1999 passed in Revenue Case No.21A/6/97-98 made order for mutation of suit land in the name of defendants 1 to 3. Defendants Jamuna Prasad (DW-1), Ranglal (DW-2) and Sukhnandan (DW-3) have also supported the aforesaid settlement (Ex-D/2 & D/4). But plaintiff Ganga Singh has deposed that alleged settlement deed (samjhotha) was got executed by defendants under threat and pressure upon him. 15. Defendants Jamuna Prasad (DW-1), Ranglal (DW-2) and Sukhnandan (DW-3) have also supported the aforesaid settlement (Ex-D/2 & D/4). But plaintiff Ganga Singh has deposed that alleged settlement deed (samjhotha) was got executed by defendants under threat and pressure upon him. 15. Plaintiff Ganga Singh has exhibited written complaint dated 06.02.1998 (Ex-P/3) made to Station House Officer, Ambagarh Chouki, written complaint (Ex-P/4 & P/5) dated 18.02.1998 made by him against defendants, carbon copy of the written complaint dated 16.02.1998 (Ex-P/6), which show that there had been property dispute between plaintiff Ganga Singh and his brothers i.e. defendants 1 to 3 and all these defendants had abused and threatened to kill him. Aforesaid complaint has also been proved by complainant Ganga Singh (PW-1) in his deposition. On the strength of aforesaid written complaint, Ganga Singh (PW-1) has deposed that after execution of the sale dated dated 05.02.1998 (Ex-P/1) by late Ram Singh in favour of plaintiffs 2 to 6, his brothers (defendants 1 to 3) started quarreling and threatened him, therefore, he made written complaint (Ex-P/3 to P/6) to the police and in between under such quarelling and pressure, defendants got executed alleged settlement deed and on the basis of that settlement deed order dated 30.01.1999 was passed by Naib Tahsildar, Ambagarh Chouki in favour of the defendants. 16. Perusal of the aforesaid documents would show that the defendants started quarreling and pressurizing plaintiff Ganga Singh and also abused and threatened him, therefore, he had made various complaints (Ex-P/3 to P/6) to the police and during this period, on the basis of alleged settlement (Ex-D/2 & D/4), the suit land was given by Naib Tahsildar to respondents 1 to 3 vide order dated 30.1.1999 on the garb of alleged family settlement, but since on the basis of aforesaid evidence, it is proved that alleged family settlement has been got executed by pressurising and threatening complainant Ganga Singh, therefore, such settlement cannot be held valid and legal because it was made without free will of the complainant Ganga Singh. 17. During the course of submission, learned counsel for defendants would submit that since the suit land was given to the defendants 1 to 3 on the basis of family settlement between the plaintiff No.1 and defendants 1 to 3, therefore, in the light of principle of estoppel, the plaintiff cannot revoke his consent/admission in this regard. 17. During the course of submission, learned counsel for defendants would submit that since the suit land was given to the defendants 1 to 3 on the basis of family settlement between the plaintiff No.1 and defendants 1 to 3, therefore, in the light of principle of estoppel, the plaintiff cannot revoke his consent/admission in this regard. He relied in the case of Dattatraya (supra), in which Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “Admission is an important piece of evidence. But it is open to the person who made the admission to prove that those admissions are not true and he made those admission under some erroneous impression or that they were obtained from him by misrepresentation…xxx xxx xx… Admission is a piece of evidence but estoppel creates title.” But in the instant case, the plaintiffs have proved by oral and documentary evidence that alleged compromise/settlement deed was executed by plaintiff Ganga Singh under pressure and threat and therefore, consent given by him on the alleged settlement is neither held to be admission nor it creates estoppel in favour of the defendants as the same was obtained from him under threat and coercion, therefore, the defendants did not get any support from aforesaid case law. In the facts situation of the instant case as discussed above, the defendants also do not get any support from the case of Tek Bhadur Bhujil (supra) 18. Thus, it has been proved by plaintiff Ganga Singh by adducing evidence that his consent with regard to alleged settlement had been obtained under pressure and coercion, therefore, such settlement did not confer any title over the suit land to the defendants 1 to 3. It is also pertinent to mention here that alleged settlement (Ex-D/2 & D/4), by which, title over the suit land which had been obtained by plaintiffs 2 to 6 vide registered sale deed (Ex-P/1), were transferred to defendants 1 to 3, are unregistered settlement deed, which required to be registered under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. Hence, on this count also title over the suit land obtained by plaintiffs 2 to 6 cannot be frustrated on the basis of such unregistered settlement deed. 19. Hence, on this count also title over the suit land obtained by plaintiffs 2 to 6 cannot be frustrated on the basis of such unregistered settlement deed. 19. As per the registered sale deed dated 05.02.1982 (Ex-P/1), three of the purchasers namely Parmeshwar, Dinesh Kumar and Meghnath who are plaintiffs 4 to 6 in the instant civil suit were minor, settlement deed (Ex-D/2 to D/4) had allegedly been executed on 19.01.1999 when aforesaid three plaintiffs/brothers were minor and as per the provisions of Section 8(2)(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship, 1956, even natural guardian cannot transfer or alienate any part of the immovable property of the minor without permission of the Court and in the instant case, it has not been proved that such permission of the Court was obtained by plaintiff No.1 prior to alleged family settlement. It has also not been proved that plaintiff No.2 Vishnu and plaintiff No.3 Ajit Kumar had participated on the alleged settlement. Therefore, on this count also alleged settlement deed (Ex.D/2 & D/4) is not found to be legal conferring any legal right to defendants 1 to 3 over the suit land. 20. Accordingly, first question of law is answered as, that, finding of ownership of disputed land/suit land lies in favour of respondents 1 to 3 given by both the courts below are perverse and illegal and finding of second question of law is given as, that, both the Courts below have committed illegality in not holding that no compromise can be effected relating to the land of the minor. 21. In view of the above discussion, it is found proved that on the basis of evidence available on record that alleged settlement (Ex-D2 & D4) arrived at between the parties is not found to be legal on various grounds despite that both the Courts below have granted title to defendants 1 to 3 over the suit land (Except Khasra No.53/1, area 0.25 decimal mentioned in the decree of first appellate court) on the basis of that settlement. Therefore, judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are perverse, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. 22. Resultantly, the second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are set aside. Therefore, judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are perverse, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. 22. Resultantly, the second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are set aside. The civil suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs is allowed and it is held that the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to get the declaration of title and possession over the suit land and therefore, decree is granted in favour for appellants/plaintiffs as under:- (a) the plaintiffs 2 to 6 are owner of the suit land bearing Khasra No.13/1 area 0.62 decimal, 13/3 area 0.74 decimal, 57/3 area 0.13 decimal, 182/9 area 0.80 decimal, and 53/1 area 0.24 decimal situated at village Chikhlee Tahsil Ambagarh Chouki, Distt. Rajnandgaon and therefore, order dated 30.01.1999 passed by Naib Tahsildar in Revenue Case No. 21A/6/97-98 is void. (b) Plaintiffs 2 to 6 are entitled to get possession of aforesaid suit land from defendants 1 to 3 in accordance with law. 23. The Decree be drawn accordingly. 24. The parties to bear their own costs.