An oral family arrangement is valid and binding, and a compromise petition conveying information about such an arrangement does not require registration.

Kamla Sahai, J.

1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for declaration of title to, and recovery of possession over, 3 bighas and odd dhurs of land appertaining to tauzi NOS. 3796 and 3806 in village Nariyan, district Saharsa.

2. In order to appreciate the points which have been raised on behalf of the appellants, it is necessary to give somes facts, Bitan Missir and Kanhaiya Missir, father of Narayan Missir (defendant No. 1), were brothers. Bitan died in about the year 1344 Fasli, leaving him surviving three daughters named Gulobati, defendant No. 9 (defendant-third-party) and Fulobati, defendant, No. 13, and Keshobati, defendant No. 14, both of whom are defendants-fifth-party. The three sisters filed seventeen applications before the Land Registration Officer for mutation of their names in Register D in place of their father, Bitan. Narayan Missir, nephew of Bitan, filed objection petitions in all those seventeen cases on the allegation that he was entitled to one-fourth share in the properties left by Bitan Missir, who had adopted him as Karta-putra, and he also prayed for mutation of his own name in respect of four annas share. On the 25th June, 1945, the three sisters and Narayan Missir filed a petition before the Land Registration Officer, stating that the disputes between them had been settled, and that the case might be adjourned as it was necessary for them to execute a document regarding the arrangement which they had arrived at. A deed of family settlement was actually executed on the 14th July, 1945. Fulobati and Keshobati joined with Narayan Missir in executing it. Although Gulobatis name was mentioned in the deed as one of the parties, she did not join in executing it. It is alleged that she could not join because she was ill, and was under treatment at Darbhanga.

On the 27th July, 1945, a joint petition for adjournment was filed before the Land Registration Officer stating that a deed of family settlement had been executed by two of the applicants and that the third had been unable to join till then because she was ill and had gone to Darbhanga. The case was then adjourned to the 22nd August, 1945, when another petition was filed jointly by all the three sisters and Narayan Missir. It was stated therein that Gulobati had entered into a family arrangement with Narayan Missir and had accepted the terms mentioned in the deed of family settlement dated the 25th July, 1945, which is a mistake for the 14th July, 1945. On these facts, a prayer was made that the name of Narayan Missir be mutated in respect of one-fourth share out of Bitan Missirs share in tauzi NOS. 3796 and 3806. It was also mentioned that it was understood that Narayan Missir would get his name mutated in the landlords sherista in respect of an area of 3 bighas 13 kathas 17 dhurs of nakdi jote lands which had been allotted to him. There were some defects in the petition, and, after those defects were removed, the Land Registration Officer allowed mutation in terms of the compromise by an order dated the 5th November, 1945.

3. The plaintiffs claim to the lands in suit is based upon a registered sale deed dated the 2nd October, 1953, executed by Musammat Gulobati. The plaintiffs case is that the family arrangement arrived at between Gulobatis sisters and Narayan Missir is not binding upon Gulobati, and hence she has conveyed a good title to the plaintiffs by the sale deed which she has executed in their favour.

4. The case of the principal defendants, who are defendants NOS. 1 to 6, on the other hand, is that the family arrangement between the parties were binding upon Gulobati, and hence she could not convey a good title to the plaintiffs in respect of the lands in suit, which were allotted, under the family arrangement, to Narayan Missir.

5. The learned Munsif, who tried the suit passed a modified decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned Subordinate Judge of Madhipura, who heard the appeal, has allowed it and dismissed th