A family settlement recognizing pre-existing rights does not require registration and may include restrictions on alienation, as long as it does not violate specific legal provisions.

( 2 ) THIS second appeal has been filed by sri Ram Ashrey, son-in-law of respondents 2 and 3 who were defendants 1 and 2 in the suit challenging the judgment by which the iii Additional District Judge, by his order dated 12-7-1979 allowed the Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1977 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20-10-1976 in O. S. No. 169 of 1968 to the extent that the finding with regard to suit for specific performance of contract and the sale deed dated 31-7-1967 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the son-in-law, was set aside, with the directions that Dukhi the defendant No. 1 under the family settlement dated 31-3-1961 could enjoy the property only during his lifetime, which could be inherited only by his male issue, if born to him, and not by female issue as agreed by him in the family settlement.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to the suit are that dukhi, was born to Ram Narain, one of the three brothers after two months of the death of his father. His name was not entered in the revenue records over the agricultural properties jointly owned by the family. On the notification of consolidation operations dukhi filed objections claiming 1/3rd share in the agricultural land. His name was entered by the Consolidation Officer in the revenue records on the basis of a family settlement dated 31-3-1961 by which his uncles agreed with him that he had 1 /3rd share in the property, on the condition that Dukhi will enjoy the land only in his lifetime, during which he will not sell, alienate, transfer or mortgage his property, and that only the male issue, if born to him, will be entitled to inherit his share of property. His married daughter shall not inherit his share, and that if after his death if he did not leave behind him any male issue, the property will revert back to his uncle Janki and Ram Ashrey.

( 4 ) DUKHI died leaving only a married daughter. Both the Courts below disbelieved the agreement to sale 28-3-1965 executed by Dukhi set up by uncles, in their favour. The trial Court further held that the restriction on transfer in family settlement dated 31-3-1961 is violative of Section 10 of the transfer of Property Act. The Trial Curt also disbelieved the settlement dated 31-3-1961 before the Consolidation Officer on the ground that it was not registered and was against public policy, as Dukhi could not disinherit his married daughter. The appellate court did not agree and held the family settlement to be valid.

( 5 ) THE findings have not been challenged by the married daughter of Dukhi. The second appeal has been filed by Ram Ashrey his son-in-law who had purchased the land from Dukhi vide sale deed dated 31-7-1965. The plaintiffs had also set up a claim of specific performance of contract on the basis of an agreement with their nephew Dukhi dated 28-3-1965. This claim was given up in the suit. The plaintiffs pressed only for relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 31-7-1965 as violative of the Act.

( 6 ) THE appellate Court found that the family settlement was not required to be registered and was not hit by Section 10 of the transfer of Property Act, as it was not a transfer of property. The appellate Court also held that the family settlement was not violative of Section 23 of the Contract Act as it was not against public policy.

( 7 ) SRI B. N. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no such family settlement. Dukhi had denied that he had entered into any such settlement, and in any case, even if any such settlement is proved, the conditions to the settlement were not valid inasmuch as any agreement by which the person divests himself with the right of transfer of property is hit by Section 10 of the Transfer of Property act. He submits that the settlement was also against public policy as it was violative of section 172 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 which