ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is challenged by defendants no. 1 and 2 in this Regular Second Appeal. In fact, the plaintiffs’ suit for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit property was dismissed by the trial court, which, in appeal, has been reversed by the First Appellate Court.

2. After having heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length, the following question arises for consideration:-

i) Whether a consent decree, passed by the civil court between nephews and their father’s sister (aunt) acknowledging the family settlement is required to be set aside on the ground that neither the family settlement is legally permissible nor, due to the absence of registration, such decree results in transfer of ownership of an immovable property valued at more than Rs.100/-?”

Facts:-

3. The plaintiffs are children of Smt.Mam Kaur (sister of late Sh.Bujan). Sh. Bujan was owner in possession of 194 kanals and 1 marla land. He died issueless in 1950s, leaving behind his widow; Smt.Shiv Kauri. Defendant no.3 is son of another sister of Sh.Bujan. Defendant no.1 a