Family settlement and part performance: an unregistered compromise acknowledging title was not saved under property law.

An ordinary family settlement that merely recognises and defines the parties' antecedent titles does not itself operate as a transfer of immovable property. Because such an arrangement is an acknowledgment of title rather than a contract to convey property for consideration, it falls outside Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The statutory protection of part performance therefore was unavailable, and the defect of non-registration was not cured by the later amendment. The unregistered compromise remained ineffective for want of registration.

---

---

Issues: Whether an unregistered family compromise or settlement acknowledging the parties' respective titles was void for want of registration, and whether Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 could validate it as part performance.

Analysis: A family settlement of the ordinary kind does not operate as a transfer of property; it proceeds on the basis that each party's antecedent title is recognised and defined. Where the arrangement merely records that recognition and does not itself convey property, it is not a contract to transfer immovable property within Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The statutory protection of part performance applies only where there is a contract to transfer immovable property for consideration in writing signed by the transferor. A compromise of the present kind, which is essentially an acknowledgment of title rather than a conveyance, could not be brought within that provision, and the defect of non-registration was not cured by the later amendment.

Conclusion: The unregistered compromise was not saved by Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and remained ineffective for want of registration.

---