Plaintiffs in O.S.No.13 of 2000 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, are the appellants. They filed the suit for partition against the respondents, in respect of the schedule property, which is a house at Visakhapatnam.

One Mr.Ghouse Khan had three brothers i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 3 and two sisters, the first appellant and late Malika Begum, the mother of the second appellant. Ghouse Khan did not marry and remained as a bachelor. He purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed dated 29.07.1981. After the death of Ghouse Khan, the appellants and the respondents affected a family settlement, through document dated 07.02.1992. According to this, the second appellant was to be given western half of the suit schedule house and the first appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 3 were to be allotted 1/4th share each, in the rest of the property.

The appellants pleaded that in spite of repeated demands, the respondents did not agree for partition of the property in accordance with the settlement. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte in the trial court and the second respondent alone contested the suit. He pleaded that an open site was purchased by late Ghouse Khan in the year 1981 and thereafter a house was constructed. He is said to have assisted his brother in construction of the building. It was pleaded that the first respondent is settled at Chennai, the third respondent at Jamshedpur and the first appellant is settled with her family at Visakhapatnam, after retirement of her husband. It is stated that the mother of the second appellant died in the year 1964 and she was brought up by the first appellant. It was further pleaded that Ghouse Khan executed a will dated 25.02.1985 bequeathing the entire suit schedule property upon him and that ever since the death of Ghouse Khan, he is residing in the house, as owner. It was urged that he permitted the appellants to reside in a portion of the house, when they came to a Hospital at Vishakhapatnam, for treatment held that the document dated 07.02.1992, marked as Ex.A.6, cannot be acted upon since it is neither registered nor properly stamped. An observation was made to the effect that the second appellant did not become the owner of any part of the property nor she is a successor on par with the other parties. The trial court took the view that partition cannot be effected at her instance. Relief was granted to the 1st appellant alone, to the extent of 1/7th share. The claim of the 2nd appellant was rejected. Hence this appeal.

During the pendency of the appeal, the first respondent died and his legal representatives are brought on record as respondent Nos.4 and 5. The second respondent also died and the respondent Nos.6 to 9 are brought on record as his legal representatives.

Sri S.Sriramchander Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the trial Court recorded a finding to the effect that Ex.A.6 is proved and still refused to enforce the arrangement contained in it. He contends that a family settlement is not required to be registered and the trial Court committed error in taking the view that it cannot be acted upon, for want of registration and deficiency of stamp duty. The learned counsel further submits that being a party to the family settlement, the second respondent cannot disown the implications that arise out of it.

The appeal is contested only by respondent Nos.6 to 9. Their counsel Sri S.Rajan submits that not being a recognized legal heir, the second appellant does not have any right to insist on partition of the property. He contends that the only basis, on which the second appellant rested her claim, is Ex.A.6, and that it is not admissible in evidence, on account of the defects as to the registration and stamp duty. He contends that the trial Court has taken the correct view of facts and law and that the judgment under appeal does not warrant any interference.

The learned cou