A memorandum of family arrangement is not an instrument of partition and does not require stamp duty or registration. Family settlements are upheld by the courts to maintain peace and harmony in the family.

Admissibility of a document dated 23-9-1972, styled as family settlement, is the core issue to be addressed in the instant writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the plaintiffs-respondents instituted a suit for declaration and cancellation of a registered sale-deed dated 11-8-2004 and mutation No. 1216 dated 20-8-2004 in favour of Bitthaldas and consequential injunction. It was the claim of the plaintiffs-respondents that the suit property was ancestral in nature and hence their predecessor Ballabhdas, arrayed as defendant No. 1 in the suit, had no right to execute the release deed dated 11-8-2004 in favour of Vitthaldas, defendant No. 3 in the suit.

3. The defendants-respondents, after their appearance in the suit, presented their written statements refuting the allegations of the plaint and raising many contentions which need not be dilated here as they are not germane to resolve the controversy here which revolves around a document dated 23-9-1972. The plaintiffs-respondents claimed that this document was a partition deed and for want of stamp and registration was inadmissible in evidence. According to the plaintiffs-respondents, from the language of this document, it clearly emerged that it was not a recordance of a past event but partition was effected through the document itself and hence as per the provisions of the Stamps Act and Registration Law, the document ought not only to be liable to be properly stamped but registered as well and as the document fell short of both these mandatory requirements, it was inadmissible for all purposes.

4. The defendants-petitioners claimed that the document in question was not a partition deed but merely a memorandum of family arrangement and hence was neither required to be stamped nor registered and was admissible for all purposes. It was further contended that the family arrangement had already been acted upon and consequently a second family arrangement was executed and hence the plaintiffs-respondents cannot challenge the validity of the document dated 23-9-1972. It was further asserted that Shri Ballabhdas, predecessor of the plaintiffs-respondents relying upon the very same document, instituted a suit No. 10/1987, titled as Vallabhdas v. Mohd. Shahid and in such suit the document was exhibited whereupon the suit was decided and hence the plaintiffs-respondents were estopped from raising objection in this behalf. The defendants-petitioners further asserted that the language of the document lead to an irresistible conclusion that it was merely a recordance of the terms and conditions already settled between the parties and hence it fell in the category of memorandum of family arrangement, neither requiring any stamp nor required to be registered.

5. In conformation of their above contentions, the plaintiffs-respondents moved an application under Order 13, Rule 3, CPC reiterating their above stand and the defendants-petitioners contested such application reiterating the assertions detailed hereinbefore and the trial Court vide its order dated 23-9-2011 held the document to be a partition deed and held the same to be inadmissible in evidence for want of both the stamps and registration. It is this order which is under challenge before this Court by way of instant writ petition by the defendants-petitioners.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and the impugned order and carefully examined the legal propositions in this behalf.

7. Counsel for the rival parties have raised more or less contentions on similar lines as raised before the trial Court and as mentioned hereinbefore, for the sake of brevity, the same are not reiterated here again.

8. Before proceedings further, it would be fruitful to refer to certain judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court pertaining to the controversy raised and involved herein.

9. In the case of Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh, reported in AIR 1988 SC 881, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in