Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants : Vivek Kumar Tankha, Sr. Adv., Neeraj Shekhar, Sanjay Shukla, Mrs. Ratna Kaul, Advs., with him for the Appellant(s).
For the Respondents:Ranjit Kumar, V. K. Bhardwaj, Nagendra Rai, Anaap G. Chaudhary, Sr. Advs., Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Raja Sharma, Ms. Rakhi Ray, Anupam Srivastava, Prashant Shukla, Shantanu Sagar, Smarhar Singh, Santash Kumar Tripathi, Prabhat Kumar Rai, Advs., with them far the Respondent(s).

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. A Deed of Family Settlement that seeks to partition joint family properties cannot be relied upon unless it is signed by all the co-sharers. The absence of signatures from all co-sharers renders the deed invalid for establishing a partition (!) (!) .

2. The validity of a family settlement does not require registration if it is an oral agreement that has been acted upon, or if it is a memorandum recording an already agreed-upon settlement, provided it does not transfer property rights directly. However, a deed of settlement that functions as a partition must be registered if it involves a transfer of rights, especially when not all co-sharers have signed (!) (!) .

3. The courts have accepted that an oral partition, subsequently documented as a memorandum, can be considered valid, especially when acted upon by the parties, even if the document was not registered. The question of whether a partition has been effected is a question of fact, and courts' prima facie findings are generally upheld unless clearly erroneous (!) .

4. The conduct of the parties, such as executing sale deeds and dealing with the property in accordance with the alleged partition, can be evidence that the partition was accepted and acted upon, even if the formal deed was not signed by all co-sharers (!) (!) .

5. The courts have held that reliance on a family settlement or memorandum for the purpose of apportioning shares is permissible even if the document was not registered, provided it is not a transfer of property rights requiring registration. The memorandum can serve as evidence of the parties' agreement and acts as an estoppel against them (!) (!) .

6. The courts emphasized that the balance of convenience and potential for irreparable injury favor allowing development or transfer rights to bona fide purchasers or transferees, provided that the substantive issues are properly adjudicated later. Interim orders should not cause undue hardship or irreparable loss to any party (!) (!) .

7. The courts have directed that the pending suit must be disposed of within a specified period, and until then, the co-sharers are restrained from creating third-party rights, encumbering, or transferring their shares in the property. All transactions are subject to the final outcome of the suit (!) .

8. The courts have recognized that a family settlement or memorandum, even if not registered, can operate as a binding estoppel against parties who have acted upon it, provided it reflects an agreement that was mutually accepted and acted upon (!) (!) .

9. The courts have reiterated that the primary consideration in granting interim relief is the conduct of the parties, the prima facie strength of their case, and the potential for irreparable harm, rather than solely the formalities of documentation (!) (!) .

10. Overall, the decision emphasizes that formal registration and signatures are critical for certain types of property transfers or partitions, but the actual conduct and acts of the parties can establish the existence and acceptance of a partition or settlement for the purposes of interim relief and substantive adjudication (!) (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.