A compromise petition creating a title in the plaintiffs, which they did not possess before the compromise, either in fact or in law, at or before the death of Sheobhajan Singh, their admitted separated cousin, required registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This appeal, by the plaintiffs, is from a judgment of reversal, of the learned Subordinate Judge, Patna, who reversed the judgment and decree of the first Court, with respect to plot 1631, and, dismissed the suit in respect thereof.

2. We are concerned in this appeal only with plot 1631, and, not with plot 1632, in respect or which the judgment of the Trial Court was affirmed.

3. The (acts, material for the decision of the appeal, are these :

4. There was one Sheobhajan Singh, whose admitted first cousins are the plaintiffs. Sheobhajan Singh was admittedly separate from the plaintiffs. After the death of Sheobhajan Singh, a dispute arose, regarding his properties, between the plaintiffs and his widow, defendant No. 1, in thee Land Registration Department. Ultimately, there was a compromise between the parties on the 22nd August, 1941, as will appear from the compromise petition (Ext. 1). Under this compromise (Ext. 1) the land in suit, plot 1631, the admitted owner of which was Sheobhajan Singh, husband of defendant 1, was kept Ijmal between the plaintiffs and defendant 1, and, in the said plot, defendant 1 got 2/3rd and the plaintiffs got the remaining l/3rd share. The plaintiffs brought the present suit for a declaration of their tide to and partition of their 1/3rd share in plot 1631.

5. The suit was contested by defendant 1 on various grounds. One of them was that the compromise (Ext. 1) was fraudulent and not binding on her. This compromise, however, has been held by the court of appeal below to be valid and binding on her, and, it has further been found that it was acted upon by the parties. This finding of the court of appeal below is not disputed.

6. In the present appeal, therefore, we are concerned only with the effect of this compromise (Ext. 1).

7. The compromise (Ext. 1), however, was attacked also on the ground that it was inadmissible in evidence, because, it was unregistered, and, the court of appeal below upheld this objection, and, it further held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their unity of title and possession. On these findings, therefore, the plaintiffs suit was dismissed with respect to plot 1631,

8. On second appeal to this Court, the appeal hag been argued on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants by Mr. Narbadeshwar Prasad Singh, a young, junior Advocate of this Court. He has, however, argued the appeal with great ability and thoroughness, and, I think, he must be complemented on his performance.

9. The points urged by him are ; (1) that the court of appeal below was in error in holding that the compromise, Ext. 1, was not admissible in evidence, as it was not registered, because it required no registration, and, ns such, it was admissible in evidence. In support of his contention, he relied upon a Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Baldeo Singh V/s. Udal Singh, AIR 1021 All 248; (2) that, assuming that the compromise (Ext. 1) was not registered, as required by law, even then as it was acted upon, and, the parties derived advantage thereunder, it amounted to part-performance, and, therefore, they cannot now resile from it, and, as such, defendant 1 also cannot go behind it. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Privy Council in Mahomed Musa V/s. Aghore Kumar Ganguli, AIR 1914 PC 27; and, (3) that because the compromise (Ext. 1) was acted upon by defendant 1 also, she was estopped from challenging the right of the plaintiffs to l/3rd share in the disputed plot 1631, under this compromise. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of Mr. Justice Das (as he then was), of this Court, sitting singly, in Mangal Das V/s. Bhageran Sao, 1953 BLJR 214 : (AIR 1953 Pat 318).

10. Mr. Lalnarain Sinha, the learned Government Advocate, who appeared for defendant 1-respondent 1, however, combated the above contentions of the appellants, and, submitted, in reply, (1) that the unregistered compromise, Ext. I, has tightly been held to