A family settlement arrived at with the intervention of near relations and friends, and reduced into writing as a memorandum of settlement, is admissible in evidence even if it is not registered, provided that it is a bonafide settlement to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division of allotment of properties between the various members of the family.

N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal No. 2283 of 1986 and Civil Revision No. 1964 of 1988.

2. Plaintiff-appellant filed suit for declaration to the effect that he is exclusive owner in possession of southern portion of House No. RXVII-624/52 (new) and R-VII-624/28 (old) situate in Sham Nagar, Ludhiana shown red in the site plan attached consisting of six rooms one half room, two verandas, kitchens, latrines, passage, stair case and courtyard etc and that the defendant has no right and concern with the same. Relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property as well as interfering or dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly and without recourse to law, was claimed. In addition thereto, mandatory injunction was sought against the defendant directing him to execute a transfer deed in his favour and get the same duly registered. The case set up by the plaintiff is that land under-neath the two separately built houses, one in possession of the plaintiff and other with the defendant was, in fact, purchased jointly, though the sale-deed was executed in the name of the defendant alone. Since there was no dispute between the parties with regard to shares of the two brothers, the plaintiff raised construction upon the area falling to his share about 18 years from the date of filing of the present suit. It has been further averred by the plaintiff that after some time of the construction of the house, dispute again cropped up between the parties, but was resolved with the intervention of the near relations and, ultimately, reduced into writing in the form of family arrangement/family settlement. Somehow, despite this compromise executed on February 7, 1978, yet once again, some differences between the parties cropped up and once again, compromise was arrived at on October 23, 1979 with the intervention of the respectables known to the parties. This settlement was reduced Into writing, which was signed by the parties as well as the witnesses. Pursuance to this agreement, pending suit between the parties was withdrawn. Since the defendant did not adhere to the settlement i.e. transfer of the property by means of a registered sale-deed, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.

3. The defendant put in appearance, filed written statement and controverted various material averments made by the plaintiff. It was averred that the plot in dispute where-upon the plaintiff raised construction with the permission of the defendant is in permissive possession of the plaintiff. As regards the compromise-settlement arrived at between the parties the defendant had stated that a compromise between the parties was arrived at in which the plaintiff had agreed to give him his half share of the plot situate in Janta Nagar, Ludhiana and in lieu thereof, he had agreed to make the plaintiff owner of the property in dispute. In addition thereto, the plaintiff was to give him a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Since the plaintiff did not adhere to the compromise/settlement, he has got no right to claim relief now being sought. As regards the subsequent two agreements dated February 7, 1978 and October 23,1979, it was stated that the plaintiff has not fulfilled his part of the compromise and so is estopped by his acts and conducts to claim the ownership of the property, which is owned by the defendant as per the registered sale-deed. It was, thus, prayed that the suit merits dismissal and same may be dismissed.

4. In replication, the plaintiff controverted the averments made in the written statement and reaffirmed those contained in the written statement.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is the exclusive owner in possession of southern portion of the house in dispute shown as red in the plan attached with the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. If issue No. 1 is not proved, whether the p