Anand Byrareddy, J : Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The appellants were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court and are accordingly referred to for the sake of convenience. The plaintiffs are residents of Tharabanahalli, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. They claim that the suit properties are their joint family properties. The propositus was one Appayanna one Huchappa, who owned and possessed several immovable properties of the village. The family consisted of over one hundred and twenty members. It is the plaintiffs' case that in order to enjoy the family properties separately a' "panchayath palupatti" or "panchayath partition" was effected and was reduced to writing on 20.2.1990. The particulars of the items of the property allotted to the plaintiffs' branch forms the suit properties. The plaintiffs as well as the other members of the several branches of the family had subscribed their hand to the family arrangement and settlement and the respective parties had over a period of time enjoyed their respective shares. The revenue records were similarly effected in the names of the respective parties. The properties have been improved and developed over the years. It is the plaintiffs' claim that they have secured one acre of land as their share. Defendant No.4, who is a stranger to the family sought to interfere with the said item of land bearing Survey No.61/2. It was found that the claim of the fourth defendant was that he had purchased the same from the first defendant without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiffs though it was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. The first defendant had no right or interest which he could convey in favour of the fourth defendant. It was in that background that the suit was filed for declaration in respect of the said item of land.

The suit was contested by the fourth defendant and it was claimed that he had entered into an agreement of sale with the first defendant and the sale transaction not having been completed the fourth defendant was constrained to file a suit for specific performance of agreement. The same having been decreed, it was executed. Therefore he had acquired an absolute right over the suit land. It was contended that the plaintiffs' suit was hence not maintainable.

After a full-fledged vial, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. This finding having been confirmed in an appeal, the present second appeal is filed.

3. The matter was heard at length for admission.

4. The primary substantial question of law that is sought to be canvassed is that Exhibit P2 which is a record of the family arrangement entered into by the members of the family, though not registered was ignored by both the Courts below, which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Hence, the learned Counsel for the appellant would seek to contend that the document did not require registration as it was in the nature of a family arrangement or a record of partition effected through the village panchayath. The learned Counsel also produced the document, which from its tenor indicated that the properties had been agreed to be shared in the manner recorded therein, and such an agreement was arrived at immediately prior to the execution of the same at the panchayath. It was that agreement which was reduced to writing. This according to the learned Counsel for the appellant was a mere record of an earlier partition and therefore, did not require registration. It is this argument which is canvassed at length, as this Court was of the prima facie opinion that the deed in question required registration.

5. The learned Counsel placed reliance on several authorities to urge that Exhibit P2 did not suffer from want of registration as it was not compulsorily registerable. The several citations are as follows:

1. Roshan Singh and Others Vs. Zile Singh and Others (AIR 1988 SC 881);

2. Veerappa and Others Vs. Smt. Halavva and Others (ILR 2008 Kar 2159);

3. Lakka