JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J

Heard Sri Vibhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rakesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law framed in the memo of appeal as (a) (b) and (d) and they read as under:-

(a) Whether the finding recorded in appeal that the compromise dated 20.09.1970 regarding the family arrangement already arrived at reducing the share of Sri Ram Prasad in the property in dispute was not admissible in evidence for want of registration, is contrary to the well settled view of this Hon'ble Court and is illegal ?

(b) Whether the findings recorded in appeal that the photostat copy of the family settlement dated 20.09.1970 was not admissible in evidence in the present suit is illegal in view of the fact established on the record that the other family arrangements had been admitted by Sri Ram Prasad in his written statement filed in the earlier suit no. 192 of 1971 having been accepted by him and the said suit was having been decided on the basis of the compromise in which the above family settlement had been admitted?

(d) Whether the decree passed by the trial court was illegally reversed in appeal by the appellate court below without reversing the finding recorded by the trial court that the situation of the share of Ram Prasad falling in the middle of the above plot established that Ram Prasad had accepted lesser area in the above plot and that the above compromise had been effectively acted upon, without reversing the finding of the trial court?

3. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are being noticed hereinafter first:-

4. Sri Ram Lal and Kripa Shankar, the original plaintiffs, filed a suit in the Court of Munsif Hawali, Faizabad registered as R.S. No. 273 of 1981 seeking a decree of injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 to 4 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs.

5. It was pleaded that the property in dispute relates to Plot No. 65 measuring 11 Biswa and 8 dhur situate in village Berwari Khand, Pargana Amisan, Tehsil and District Faizabad which was located on the western side of the road from Gosainganj Bazar to Sorva. It was also pleaded that initially the property, the subject matter of the suit was of Ram Prasad son of Sahai and Sarju Prasad, Jagannath, Ram Shankar, Jamuna Prasad and Badri Prasad.

6. It was stated that the property initially belonged to Ram Chandra Sahu who was survived by his two sons, Ram Samujh Sahu and Sri Sahai Sahu. Sri Sahai Sahu was survived by his only son Ram Prasad whereas Ram Samujh Sahu had five sons namely Sarju Prasad, Jamuna Prasad, Badri Prasad, Ganga Prasad and Jagannath. Thus, Sri Ram Prasad had half share in plot no. 65 whereas the other half was with the five brothers as noticed above.

7. At present, the plainiffs and the defendants nos. 5 to 8 are the purchasers of half share of Ram Prasad whereas the defendants no. 1 to 4 are the purchasers from Sarju Prasad. The dispute arose on account of the fact that the plaintiffs and the defendants no. 5 to 8 claiming to have purchased half share of Ram Prasad were in the process of raising constructions over their land whereas the same was resisted by the defendants nos. 1 to 4 who are the successors in interest having purchased the share of Sarju Prasad.

8. The defence of the defendant nos. 1 to 4 was that a family arrangement had been arrived at between Ram Prasad and the five sons of Ram Samujh. In tems whereof, Ram Prasad had relinquished