The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a bona fide family settlement to resolve family disputes, along with the necessity of antecedent title, claim, or interest in the property, and the requirement for registration of compromise decrees creating rights in immovable property worth more than Rs. 100.

M.L. Singhal, J. - Shailesh Kumar son of Piara Lal r/o 13-B, Model Town, Yamunanagar instituted suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of House No 13-B, Model Town, Yamunanagar as described in the heading of the plaint against his sisters S/Smt. Sadhya Gupta, Abha Gupta and Anurag Gupta, on the allegations, that earlier, Smt. Bimla Gupta was owner of this property. She died on 28.7.1996, leaving this property and the plaintiff and the defendants as her legal heirs. Plaintiff and the defendants are the children of Smt. Bimla Gupta. A family settlement took place between the parties. As per that the family settlement, property in suit described in the heading of the plaint came to the exclusive share of the plaintiff. Possession of the disputed property was handed over to him and since then, he has been in possession of the property in suit as its exclusive owner. Defendants were called upon to cooperate with him and act in a manner that the property in suit was recorded in his name in the record.

2. Defendants filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff.

3. Vide order dated 13.9.1997, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jagadhri dismissed the plaintiffs suit on the view, relying upon Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh, AIR 1996 SC 196 that the property in suit had been inherited by the parties who are brother and sisters, from their mother and as such it was not ancestral/coparcenary property, in which plaintiff could be said to have pre-existing right and regarding which family settlement could be arrived at.

4. Plaintiff went in appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri vide order dated 2.2.2000.

Still not satisfied, plaintiff has come up in further appeal to this Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was a family settlement entered into by S/Smt. Sandhya Gupta, Abha Gupta and Anurag Gupta with their brother Shailesh Kumar. In view of the said family settlement Ex.P-1 dated 2.7.1996, the said house bearing No. 13-B, Model Town, Yamunanagar fell to the share of their brother Shailesh Kumar. It is recorded that Smt. Bimla Gupta owned movable and immovable properties including house No. 13-B, Model Town, Yamunanagar. She died on 28.6.1996 leaving behind four heirs namely S/smt Sandhya Gupta, Abha Gupta and Anurag Gupta-daughters and Shailesh Kumar-son. Family settlement Ex.P-1 is dated 2.7.1996, between Shailesh Kumar and his sisters with regard to the property which devolved upon them from their mother Smt. Bimbla Gupta.

7. On the death of their mother Smt. Bimla Gupta, each of them inherited her in equal shares i.e. each of them got 1/4th share each in the property left by Smt. Bimla Gupta. In the properties owned by Smt. Bimla Gupta none of them had any pre-existing right, as for instance, among Hindus, in Joint Hindu Family/Coparcener/Ancestral Property, sons have pre-existing right equal to their father and this right becomes attached to them the moment they are born. They have, thus, pre-existing right in the Joint Hindu Family/Coparcenary/Ancestral Property. In this property none of them had any right so long as Smt. Bimla Gupta was alive. None of them had any prior right in the property which devolved upon them.

8. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that family settlement among the members of the family does not require registration. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Pritam Singh v. Darshan Singh and others, 1991 Civil Court Cases 642 where it was held that family settlement does not require registration.

9. Ex.P-1 cannot be viewed as a "family settlement" because in "family settlement", only the property belonging to the family is involved. In this case, house No. 13-B, Model Town, Yamunanagar was involved. It was not the property of the family. It was earlier the property of Smt. Biml