Enforceability of family settlements despite non-registration where the parties acted on the arrangement and accepted its benefits.

A bona fide family settlement, once proved by signatures and original record and acted upon through mutation and conduct, remains enforceable despite being unregistered. The court rejected the objection based on Section 49 of the Registration Act because the arrangement had already been relied on by the parties, and a party who accepted benefits under it was estopped from later challenging it on technical grounds. The settlement allocating family property between the branches was therefore treated as binding, and the challenge to it failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the family settlement dated 28.03.1993 was binding on the parties and could be enforced despite being unregistered, and whether the appellant could challenge it after having acted upon it.

Analysis: The family settlement was found to be signed by the father and all brothers, and its execution was proved by the original document and admitted signatures. It reflected a bona fide family arrangement allotting the Chandigarh property to the plaintiff and the Delhi property to the other brothers, and it had been acted upon through mutation and conduct of the parties. The challenge based on non-registration and alleged defects in the document was rejected because a family arrangement, once acted upon and relied on, is enforceable and may be used to prove the arrangement and conduct of the parties. The appellant, having derived benefits under the settlement, was held estopped from resiling from it. The objection under Section 49 of the Registration Act did not defeat the settlement in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The family settlement was held to be binding and enforceable, and the appellant's challenge to it failed.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the trial court was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A bona fide family settlement, once proved and acted upon by the parties, is enforceable against a party who has accepted its benefits, and such a party cannot later repudiate it on technical objections including non-registration.

---