A family settlement document does not necessarily require registration to be admissible as evidence, and a second appeal must address substantial questions of law for it to be entertained.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Heard Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Rahul Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for contesting respondents.

2. There are multiple proceedings between the parties. The first proceeding was commenced when one Rajveer Singh filed a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, which was decided and Khurras were prepared with consent of parties, purportedly on basis of a memorandum of family settlement reduced in writing on 12.04.2003 and accordingly a final decree was proposed, however, thereafter the parties remained silent for about a decade.

3. In the year 2013, when Smt. Laxmi Devi died issueless then respondent/plaintiff filed a suit under Section 176 //182 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, which commenced the second litigation between parties. It was claimed that in plaint the fact of family settlement was not disclosed. The suit was contested and finally claim of respondent No.6 was rejected and counter claim of petitioners was allowed by order dated 27.02.2019 and accordingly, a preliminary decree was prepared on 05.03.2019.

4. The aforesaid referred judgment and preliminary decree were challenged by plaintiff/respondent by way of a First Appeal before the Commissioner, Meerut.

5. During pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was filed but it was never allowed, still additional evidence was considered and the First Appellate Court by an order dated 20.02.2020 has set aside the judgment and preliminary decree passed by Trial Court and allowed the suit of respondent No.6. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:-

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, a Second Appeal was filed by the petitioners, wherein substantial questions of law was proposed as well as several grounds were also taken. For reference, the substantial questions of law proposed in memo of Second Appeal are reproduced hereinafter :-

"A. Whether, lower appellate court erred in law by allowing the appeal without set asiding the finding of trial court recorded on issues and without discussing about the issues framed and decided by trial court and without recording his own finding on issues.

B. Whether, lower appellate court erred in law in treating a memorandum of family settlement as compromise deed and allowing the appeal on the ground that it is not a registered documents without proper consideration of document and without reading it in whole and without recording finding that whether this document is memorandum of family settlement or family settlement of compromise deed, especially when this document is not giving any new right to the parties but it is only settlement of cultivation of lands by parties, which registration is not required.

C. Whether, lower appellate court erred in law to ignoring the fact that family settlement regarding cultivating the land was accepted by plaintiff/respondent and parties are in possession and peacefully cultivating over their land according to compromise since a long time hence claim of plaintiff/respondent is barred by principal of Estoppel.

D. Whether, lower appellate court erred in law in relying upon the documents which was first time filed in appellate court without allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C.

E. Whether, judgment and degree of lower appellate court suffers from misreading, misinterpretation and ignorance of laws and evidences."

7. The Second Appeal was heard, however, it was dismissed by an order dated 08.03.2022 at the stage of admission, taking a view that no question of law