The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 96 of 1997, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, filed this revision, aggrieved by the order dated 31-8-2005, passed by the trial Court.

2. The petitioners filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, vis-a-vis the suit schedule property. The respondents are defendants in that suit. The trial of the suit commenced and the recording of evidence of the petitioners was concluded. The 2nd respondent herein filed his affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination as D.W.1. Several documents were enclosed , to the affidavit. The petitioners raised serious objection for receiving of two documents viz, a deed of family arrangement dated 5-5-1993, marked as EX.B-34, and a family dispute resolution, dated 30-1-1994, marked as X-8.

Extensive submissions were made on behalf of the petitioners, about the admissibility of the said documents. The objections mainly related to the registration and stamp duty.

Through the order under revision, the trial court overruled the objections, and received the documents.

3. Sri S. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the documents have the effect of bringing about alteration in the rights of the parties, in respect of immovable properties, and they were compulsorily registerable. He contends that though there are certain recitals about the discussion that has preceded the settlements, the ultimate settlement came to be effected through the documents, and in that view of the matter, they were not admissible in evidence, without registration. He cited several judgments in support of his contention.

4. Sri P.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the documents by themselves, did not bring about any settlement, in respect of the immovable property. He submits that a perusal of the documents discloses that they did nothing more than refer to the agreement arrived at between the parties, and have also mentioned the fact that the final documents, with due registration, must be executed, at a later point of time.

5. The controversy in this C.R.P. is about the admissibility of two deeds of family settlement or arrangement. The first one is dated 5-5-1993, which is marked as EX.B-34.

The other one is also in the form of a family settlement and it is dated 30-1-1994, marked as EX.X-8. Admittedly, both the documents were not registered, nor were executed on requisite stamp paper.

6. Family settlements stand on a totally different footing, in the context of registration and stamp duty. In Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Supreme Court had reviewed the law on the subject. The judgments rendered by various courts, commencing from (1911) 38 Indian Appeals 87 (Privy Council), to AIR 1972 SC 2069, were discussed at length, and ultimately it was held as under:

"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 immovable 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 registerable;"

Another settled principle of law is that, mere nomenclature of the document by itself, is not a factor to decide its nature, and much would depend upon the contents of documents.

7. In Setti Siddamma v. S.Ramulu2, this Court held that the admissibility of a document can be considered by the trial court at three stages, viz. at the stage, when the documents are presented along with the affidavit in lieu of chief-exa