The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability and requirements of a family settlement in property disputes, emphasizing the need for antecedent title, the finality and binding nature of a family arrangement, and the non-requirement of compulsory registration for a decree based on a family settlement.

Viney Mittal, J.

1. The plaintiffs having remained concurrently unsuccessful in the two Courts below have filed the present regular second appeal.

A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) to the effect that they are owners in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share in addition to their own share in the land in dispute and that the decree dated January 21, 1983 suffered by Basti Ram in favour of defendant-respondent Ram Karan (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) was illegal, bad and had no effect upon their rights.

2. There was one Hira. He had three sons namely, Budh Ram, Ram Karan and Basti Ram and a daughter Bhati. He also left behind a widow namely, Mahasukhi. The plaintiffs are the sons daughter and widow of Budh Ram. Basti Ram was unmarried and had no issue. On January 21, 1983, he suffered a decree qua the land in dispute in favour of his real brother Ram Karan. The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs on May 27, 1983, challenging the decree. Various pleas such as property being ancestral and the decree being against law and non-registration of the decree were taken by the plaintiffs to challenge the decree.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants reiterating the validity of the aforesaid decree. The plea with regard to property being ancestral was denied. It was pleaded by the defendants that in fact Basti Ram was living jointly with Ram Karan and was a disabled person. He was being looked after by Ram Karan and his family. In these circumstances, it was stated that the aforesaid decree was suffered voluntarily by Basti Ram in favour of Ram Karan.

4. The learned trial Court after appraising the entire evidence on the record found that the aforesaid decree was validly suffered by Basti Ram qua his own share in favour of Ram Karan and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. An appeal was filed by the plaintiffs. The learned Additional District Judge, while agreeing with the judgment of the learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs. Now, the aforesaid plaintiffs have come in present regular second appeal in this Court.

5. I have heard Shri Alok Jain, the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri R.A. Yadav, the learned counsel for the respondents and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.

6. Shri Alok Jain, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in fact the decree dated January 21, 1983 was a consent decree and since there was no antecedent title vested in defendant Ram Karan, therefore the same required registration. On the strength of the aforesaid submission Shri Alok Jain maintains that once the decree is ignored and set aside then the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be decreed. On the other hand, Shri R.A. Yadav, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the aforesaid decree was the result of a family settlement. He has submitted that Basti Ram was a disabled person and was not married and had no issue. He was living with Ram Karan and was being looked after by him and his family. In these circumstances, it is maintained by Sri Yadav that the aforesaid decree was perfectly legal and valid and had been suffered by Basti Ram voluntarily. It is further submitted by Shri Yadav that in fact the suit was filed by the plaintiffs on May 27, 1983, whereas Basti Ram had died in 1987. On the strength of the aforesaid fact, it is submitted that on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs had no locus standi or cause of action to file the present suit.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and in my opinion, the present appeal has no merit and deserves to fail.

8. It is not in dispute that Basti Ram was issueless and as per the evidence on re cord, it is clearly shown that he was living with his brother Ram Karan. Both the Courts below have found it as a fact that in fact the decree has been suffered by B