A document serving as a mere record or memorandum of a pre-existing oral family settlement does not require compulsory registration under the Registration Act. Furthermore, parties who have acted upon such a settlement for an extended period are precluded by the doctrine of estoppel from challenging its validity.

Judgment

1. Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby the second appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 has been allowed, judgment dated 17.02.2007 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority has been set aside, and judgment dated 21.11.2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kushalgarh has been restored.

2. Briefly stated, the dispute pertains to land comprising in Survey No. 60 ad-measuring 1.38 hectare and Survey No. 116/1 ad-measuring 1.64 hectare, situated in Village Dungalipada, Tehsil Kushalgarh, Banswara (“property in question”). Petitioner-plaintiff instituted a suit for partition of the property in question under Sections 53 and 209 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“Act of 1955”), before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Kushalgarh. It was averred in the plaint that the property in question originally belonged to Hukmichand, father of the parties, and upon his demise, the same came to be mutated jointly in the names of petitioner-plaintiff and respondent-defendants Nos. 1 and 2 vide Mutation No. 297 dated 01.06.2000.

2.1 Said suit was contested by Respondent No. 1 – Defendant No. 2, Lalit Kumar, who filed a written statement and a counter claim, asserting that the property in question already stood partitioned by way of a family settlement dated 14.08.1980, whereby Survey No. 60 fell to the share of petitioner-plaintiff and Respondent No. 2 – Defendant No. 1, Natwarlal, while Survey No. 116/1 fell exclusively to the share of Respondent No. 1.

2.2 Petitioner-plaintiff denied the existence of any such settlement and pleaded that document dated 14.08.1980 was neither registered nor duly stamped and, therefore, was inadmissible in evidence.

2.3 Learned SDO, vide judgment dated 21.11.2001, partly decreed petitioner's suit, allowing the partition of Survey No. 60 between petitioner and Respondent No. 2 - Natwarlal, while accepting the counter claim of Respondent No. 1, directing that Survey No. 116/1 be recorded solely in his name based on the family settlement dated 14.08.1980.

2.4 Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 223 of the Act of 1955 before the Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Udaipur, which was allowed vide judgment dated 17.02.2007, decreeing the petitioner's suit in full and dismissing the counter claim. Learned RAA held that family settlement dated 14.08.1980 required compulsory registration and, being unregistered, was inadmissible in evidence.

2.5 Challenging said order dated 17.02.2007, Respondent No. 1 preferred a second appeal under Section 227 of the Act of 1995 before the Board of Revenue (BoR), which, by impugned order dated 02.05.2025, reversed the judgment passed by learned RAA and restored judgment and decree dated 21.11.2001 passed by learned SDO, holding that document dated 14.08.1980 being a memorandum of family settlement was not mandatorily required to be registered under the law.

2.6 Aggrieved thereby, present petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for