NIRMAL SINGH Vs. BHAGWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Swatanter Kumar, J.-The order dated 25.7.1998 is impugned in this revision petition. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and injunction restraining the defendants not to alienate any part of the suit land in any manner whatsoever. During the course of examination; P.W. 1 referred to the agreement/settlement dated 27.4.1986 alleged to have been executed between the parties. At that stage, learned Counsel for the defendants raised an objection that neither the said agreement was admissible in evidence nor the same could be exhibited.

(2.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court held as under: "Therefore, 1 find force in contention of learned Counsel for the defendants that the agreement sought to be produced by the plaintiff is admissible in evidence since the same has not been registered and does not conform to the mandatory provision of Section 17 of the Indian REGISTRATION ACT, 1908. Therefore, the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff is sustained."

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners, while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Charan Das v. Girja Nandini Devi & Ors.. argued that the said document was admissible in evidence. He relies upon the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court to say that the consideration for a family settlement is the expectation that such a settlement will result in establishing or ensuring enmity and good-will amongst the relations and its recognition of the right. It was held in that case that the compromise entered into by the parties to the previous suit and embodied in a decree was in substance a family arrangement and was binding on all.