Family arrangement in property division upheld as a memorandum, not a conveyance requiring compulsory registration.

A writing recording the division of family properties was treated as a valid family arrangement rather than a conveyance. The Court noted that a family settlement may be oral, and a document that merely memorialises an already concluded arrangement does not itself create title. Disputes between the brothers, their mutual claims, and the recitals showing treatment of the properties as joint property supported the finding of a family arrangement. Because the document was only a memorandum of the completed settlement and not the source of title, compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act was not required.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agreement recording the division of properties was a family arrangement; (ii) Whether the agreement required compulsory registration.

Issue (i): Whether the agreement recording the division of properties was a family arrangement.

Analysis: A family arrangement may be entered into orally, and a writing that merely records what has already been agreed is only a memorandum. The existence of disputes regarding the properties, the brothers' mutual claims, and the recitals showing that they treated the properties as joint property supported the conclusion that the arrangement was arrived at between the members of the family. The absence of the mother's statement in the document did not negate the arrangement, as the arrangement could be oral and the writing could still be evidentiary.

Conclusion: The agreement was a record of a valid family arrangement.

Issue (ii): Whether the agreement required compulsory registration.

Analysis: Registration is required only where the writing itself is intended to create or declare rights as the basis of future title. A mere memorandum of an already concluded family arrangement does not attract compulsory registration. The document here recorded an arrangement already arrived at and did not operate as the source of title or as a conveyance of property. The observations in earlier authority on arrangements involving a sole owner did not apply because the document did not recognise exclusive title in any one brother.

Conclusion: The agreement did not require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the recorded arrangement was upheld as a valid family settlement and the document was treated as an unregistered memorandum, not an instrument creating title.

Ratio Decidendi: A writing that merely records a concluded family arrangement is not compulsorily registrable, and the validity of a family settlement does not depend on the document itself operating as a conveyance of title.

---