The judgment emphasizes the requirement of registration for family settlements under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and the necessity of including all relevant parties in such settlements.

1. The dispute involved in this Regular Second Appeal is between the offsprings of two real brothers, namely, Piara Singh and Kaur Singh pertaining to their properties situated in two villages, Ghudani Kalan and Ghudani Khurd, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana. In order to appreciate the controversy raised herein, it is deemed appropriate to notice as to who are the legal representatives left behind by Piara Singh and Kaur Singh. The two brothers are said to have expired long ago even prior to the filing of the suit. Savinder Singh, Jasbir Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Sukhbir Singh are the sons of Piara Singh. Savinder Singh has also died, leaving behind his widow Ravinder Kaur and two sons - Harjinder Singh and Sukhjiwan Singh. On the other side, Jagmohan Singh, Manmohan Singh and Harmohan Singh are the sons of Kaur Singh whereas Avtar Singh is the son of aforesaid Jagmohan Singh.

2. A suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by Savinder Singh through his legal representatives, i.e. widow Ravinder Kaur and two sons Harjinder Singh and Sukhjiwan Singh, (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff-appellants ) and the remaining three sons of Piara Singh, namely, Jaswinder Singh, Jasbir Singh and Sukhbir Singh against three sons of Kaur Singh, namely, Jagmohan Singh, Manmohan Singh, Harmohan Singh and Avtar Singh son of Jagmohan Singh (hereinafter referred as defendant-respondents ).

3. The plaintiff-appellants sought a decree for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession in equal shares in the land in dispute. They also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit land. It was averred in the plaint that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs i.e. Piara Singh and of defendants 1 to 3, i.e. Kaur singh were real brothers who owned property in two villages i.e in Ghudani Kalan and Ghudani Khurd as co-sharers. In the year 1960, aforesaid Piara Singh and Kaur Singh arrived at an oral family settlement in respect of the property situated in the two villages and this family settlement (Exhibit P-1) was reduced into writing on 8-9-1961 which was signed by both the parties and the witnesses. As per this family settlement, Piara Singh got the agricultural and residential properties owned by both the brothers in village Ghudani Kalan whereas Kaur Singh got such property which was owned by the two brothers in village Ghudani Khurd. Piara Singh paid a sum of Rs. 3800.00 to Kaur Singh towards cost of house and some land which he had got in excess of his share and an endorsement to this effect was made in the family settlement. Both brothers agreed to get the mutations entered and sanctioned on the basis of the above family settlement, which somehow could not be done during their lifetime. It was further averred that after the death of Piara Singh, his widow Hardial Kaur and four sons became owners of the property and after the death of Hardial Kaur, her share also fell in the share of the plaintiffs by way of natural succession. The plaintiff-appellants claimed that ever since the day of arriving at the oral family settlement, they are in peaceful, uninterrupted and exclusive possession of the property situated in village Ghudani Kalan.

4. It was further averred that the defendants moved an application for partition of the land before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade with a view to rake up the matter of difference of land between the parties though the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants i.e. Kaur Singh had already been compensated by paying a sum of Rs. 3800.00 . It was claimed that the defendants had no right and title to the land which fell in the share of the father of the plaintiffs and after his death, to the share of the plaintiffs. The defendants had been threatening the plaintiffs by causing interference in their peaceful and exclusive possession over the property.

5. The defendants resisted t