Family settlement memorandum held non-registrable where it only recorded an earlier acted-upon arrangement, with estoppel binding the parties.

A memorandum that merely records an already concluded and acted-upon family settlement does not itself create or extinguish rights in immovable property and is not compulsorily registrable. Where close relatives have implemented a bona fide family arrangement through reciprocal transfers and changes in possession, the settlement carries special equity and estoppel prevents a party from resiling after taking benefit under it. The distinction between a fresh instrument creating rights and a record of a prior settlement is determinative on registration. The note also reflects that second appeal interference must remain within the limited scope under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---

---

Issues: Whether the document executed between family members was merely a memorandum recording an earlier family settlement or a document creating rights in immovable property so as to require registration, and whether the defendants were estopped from resiling from the arrangement.

Analysis: The parties were close relatives and the evidence established that a family arrangement had been reached earlier and had been acted upon by giving effect to reciprocal transfers and possession changes. The disputed document did not itself create the rights for the first time but recorded an already concluded settlement. A distinction was drawn between a document embodying the terms of a fresh arrangement and a mere memorandum of an earlier family settlement. On these facts, the memorandum fell within the protected category and did not attract compulsory registration. The settled principle governing family arrangements is that such bona fide settlements, when acted upon, operate with special equity and the rule of estoppel prevents a party from resiling after taking benefit under the arrangement. The interference in second appeal also failed to properly respect the limited scope of interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The document was only a memorandum of an earlier family settlement and did not require registration. The defendants were estopped from denying the arrangement, and the decree in favour of the plaintiffs was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A memorandum that merely records an already concluded and acted-upon family settlement does not by itself create or extinguish rights in immovable property and is not compulsorily registrable; parties to such a settlement are bound by estoppel from resiling from it.

---