A family arrangement must be voluntary and not induced by fraud, coercion, or undue influence. Written family arrangements can be instruments incorporating the terms of the arrangement or memoranda of partition incorporating the terms of a partition already effected. Instruments incorporating the terms of partition require registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, while memoranda of partition do not.

1. The defendants are the appellants and they have filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16-2-1985, passed by the Sub-Judge, Gumla, in Partition Suit No. 25 of 1979, decreeing the plaintiffs-respondents suit for half share in the suit properties consisting of the lands of Khatas Nos. 7 and 8 in village Salkaya, P. S. Raidih in the district of Ranchi.

2. Admittedly, parties are Hindus and governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in the matter of succession. The lands were recorded in the name of Kachnu Ram, the common ancestor of the parties. The relationship of the parties will appear from the following pedigree :

3. According to the case of the plaintiffs, they and defendants are all members of the joint Hindu family. Bilku Ram Singh son of Malar Singh died issueless in jointness with the plaintiffs and the defendants and his interest devolved on the other members of the joint family. There was never any partition between the members of the joint family, but, by way of convenience, they are cultivating the lands separately. On account of family dispute the plaintiffs felt difficulties in keeping the properties joint and so approached the defendants for amicable partition but the defendants did not agree and hence the suit.

4. The defendants, in their written statement, did not deny the relationship of the parties. They asserted that the suit is barred by the principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. It also barred by law of limitation and adverse possession. According to them there was partition between the three sons of Kachnu Ram during his lifetime in the year 1934 and the partition was accepted by all the brothers. The partition was effected by the Panches and in proof of it a Panchnama was also prepared at the time of partition and, accordingly, all the three brothers have been coming in separate possession over the lands allotted by the Panches. Parties are in separate possession of the lands, according to the aforesaid partition, and not for convenience sake, as alleged. It is further submitted on their behalf that after the death of Parsan Singh his three sons, who are defendants in the suit, came in possession of his properties and after the death of Durga Singh and his only son Sudhram Singh the three sons of Sudhram Singh, who are plaintiffs in the suit, came in possession of the properties allotted to him. Malar Singh, who also died issueless and after his death the properties of his share are partitioned between the plaintiffs and the defendants in the year 1962 and each branch got half share and since then they are coming in possession over the said properties of their respective shares. It was further asserted that the eldest son of the family was entitled to larger share than others and, accordingly, the eldest son Parsan Singh got more share than his two brothers.

5. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence and the trial court framed a number of issues and after considering the entire materials on the record came to the conclusion that two Batwara instruments (Ext.-C of the year 1934 and Ext.-D of the year 1962) cannot be treated as legally admissible documents to prove partition between the parties, as both of them are unregistered documents and they require registration under the provisions of S. 17 (1)(b) of the Registration Act and that the defendants have failed to prove that there was a partition between the parties by metes and bounds and the properties remained joint between the parties, and, accordingly, decreed the plaintiffs suit for half share in the suit properties.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the trial court has erred in law in holding that the two partition documents were the instruments of partition and not admissible for want of registration ignoring the fact that the transfers were not effected by these instruments and they were only a memorandum of partition whi