An unregistered family settlement creating rights in immovable property is compulsorily registrable and cannot be admitted in evidence unless registered.

S. K. SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) PUT cauli flower in a wooden box and affix a slip of roses over it. Colour of cauli flower shall not turn into pink cauli flower shall remain cauli flower. No matter you have kept it in a box of roses. Similarly if a document creates right in the property then unless it is registered, it cannot be taken into evidence. No matter it has been reduced into writing in the name and style of fami1y settlement.

( 2 ) THIS interesting situation has arisen in this revision petition, which has been filed against the order dated 26-7-1996 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4 Jaipur City whereby the alleged family settlement was taken on record and objections raised by the petitioner regarding admissibility of the documents were rejected.

( 3 ) IN a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, a document allegedly stated to be a family settlement, copy of which was available in the file of Jagir Commissioner, was summoned by the trial Court. At the time of cross-examination of Dr. Hari Singh, defendant-non-petitioner No. 14, it was contended by the counsel for the other defendant-non-petitioners that Dr. Hari Singh produced the said copy of the family settlement before the Jagir Commissioner and as such he could exhibit the said document. Dr. Hari Singh. the defendant non-petitioner No. 14 and the plaintiff-petitioner objected to it and filed two separate applications stating therein that alleged family settlement being unstamped and unregistered could not have been admitted in evidence. It was also stated that alleged document was a copy of the original and unless application for seeking permission for adducing secondary evidence is filed it could not have been permitted to be exhibited.

( 4 ) THE trial court dismissed both the applications by the impugned order which has been assailed in this revision.

( 5 ) I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties nd perused the impugned order as well as copy the alleged family settlement.

( 6 ) BEFORE adverting to the legal aspect of the case, it is necessary to examine the nature of the document stated to be a family settlement. A look at the document clearly demonstrates that it creates right in the property. In column number one it has been stated that the first party Rawat Surendra Singh shall retain possession of certain properties of Schedu1e A, as absolute and exclusive owner whereas second party Thakur Hari Singh and third party Mangi Mohan Kanwarji shal1 have no claim on these properties. Similarly transfer of interest in the property has been made in column No. two. As per column No. 5 Maha1 of Thikana Nidhar will continue to be in the possession of the third party til1 her life and thereafter reverted back to Thikana and the first party relinquished all tit1e over them

( 7 ) MR. Vidhya Bhushan Sharma learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1, 12 and17 vehemently contended raising preliminary objections that the plaintiff obtained benefit of the said document before the Jagir Commissioner where it was got exhibited and Dr. Hari Singh did not make any objection regarding its inadmissibility. When the document was exhibited in the court of Jagir Commissioner, no such objection is tenable now. It has also been contended that no stamp is needed for the execution of family settlement and it is not compulsorily registrable. There is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order and it cannot be interfered with in revision.

( 8 ) MR. D. D. Patodia learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that revision is maintainable. The alleged family settlement being unstamped and unregistered, could not have been admitted in evidence. The secondary evidence could not have been produced unless prior permission of the court is sought. The impugned order suffers from grave jurisdictional error as such deserves to be set aside.

( 9 ) THE Supreme Court had occasion to draw a dist