HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 170 of 2016 Dinesh Chandra Joshi. ………..Appellant.

Versus Anurag Joshi and others. ……..Respondents Present:

Mr. V.K. Kaparwan, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Siddharath Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. A suit no. 07 of 2010 was filed by the plaintiffs / respondents for partition against the defendant / appellant on the ground that family settlement dated 28.08.2004 cannot be read in evidence since the same is not registered and is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.

2. On the contrary, defendant’s case was that admittedly, family settlement dated 28.08.2004 was signed by the plaintiffs, therefore, once they signed the family settlement, they cannot dispute the same that the family settlement is not admissible. In fact, partition suit was filed by the respondents / plaintiffs in respect of a building raised over the land, which in fact is a nazul land. Family settlement is on record and it appears from the family settlement that a piece of nazul land was given on lease wherein construction was raised, however, uptill date no free hold rights has been