Draft for discussions only

03.08.2022

Family settlement
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Charan v. Girja Nandini, observed "the word 'family' is not to be
understood in a narrow sense of being a group of persons whom the law recognizes as having a right
of succession or having a claim to a share in the disputed property.” A family is not the one which is
normally understood for purposes of Hindu Law.

It may be understood in proper sagacity in the case of a family settlement, as constituting a group of
persons who are recognised in law as having a right of succession or having a claim to a share in the
property in dispute. But every party taking benefit under a family settlement need not necessarily be
shown to have under the law, a claim to share in the property. All that is necessary is that the parties
should be related to one another in some way and have a possible claim or a semblance of a claim
on some ground as, say, affection.

One of the earliest cases where such view was taken was in Lala Khunni Lal v. Kunwar
Gobind,1911, when the Privy Council stressed that it was the duty of the courts to uphold and give
full effect to a family arrangement. In Sadhu Madho Das v. Pandit Mukand Ram 1955, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that a family arrangement can, as a matter of law, be implied from a long course
of dealings between the parties.

In the case of Sk Satter Sk. Mohd. Choudhary. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate, AIR 1997 SC 998, the
Apex Court relying upon the definition of Family Arrangement in Halsbury’s Laws s per Halsbury’s
Laws of England, “A Family Arrangement is an agreement between members of the same family,
intended to be generally and reasonably for the benefit of the family, either by compromising
doubtful or disputed rights or by preserving the family property or the peace and security of the
family by avoiding litigation or by saving its honour. The agreement may be implied from a long
course of dealing. But it is more useful to embody or to effectuate the agreement in a deed to which
the term family agreement is applied.”

1.A Family settlement agreement should be upheld to minimize judicial interference

The rationale behind the legal rule of upholding an FSA has been explained in the 1973 case of S.
Shanmugam Pillai v. K. Shanmugam Pillai. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “If in the interest
of the family properties or the family peace the close relations had settled their disputes amicably,
this court will be reluctant to disturb the same. The courts generally lean in favour of family
arrangements.” From here stemmed today’s understanding of upholding an FSA.

2. Courts are duty-bound to give effect to an FSA (ENFORCIBILITY OF FAMILY SETTLEMENT)

The validity of a family settlement agreement was first upheld by the 1911 case of Khunni Lal v.
Kunwar Gobind Krishna Narain. In this case, the Privy Council placed a duty on the courts to uphold
and give full effect to an arrangement regarded by the parties themselves.

Parties must create a separate instrument for partition and transfer of the property

An FSA does not govern the transfer of property. It is merely an instrument assigning property rights,
the mutation of which must be effectuated by a separately registered transfer deed. An FSA only
assigns the rights to the signatory family members. To realise their right in the family property, they
must execute separate instruments demonstrating their intention to transfer the property.
 Draft for discussions only
03.08.2022

Registered /unregistered Family settlement

A family settlement agreement can be orally conveyed or in a written format but documentation is
recommended because it helps avoid any confusion. As for registration and stamping, you need to
determine whether it is required. For a collateral purpose, the agreement may be stamped and not
registered. A settlement doesn’t require registration if it is oral. But for the written word to be
considered legal, registration is a good option because it is accepted in a court of law. Do note that if
there are amendments to what has already been accepted, another document should be created
but it need not be registered because it doesn’t fall under the purview of the Registration Act 1908
(Section 17 (2). Suppose your family settlement agreement is not registered, it can still act as an
estoppel. Estoppel is that which prevents a person from asserting something that is contrary to what
he/she had implied previously orally or in written. However, you will need to register an agreement
if it causes change in legal rights of the family members. In the Tek Bahadur versus Debi Singh and
Others case, the court had considered the validity of a family settlement deed. It upheld the validity
of an oral family settlement and ruled that registration is required only when it is written. A family
settlement agreement is useful given that it an amicable resolution among parties and does not take
as much time as a court of law. Do note that transfer of property or assets under this agreement is
not to be considered as a gift and is neither a transfer of right. Therefore, there is no question of
capital gains tax. The Madras High Court ruled to this effect in the case of Commissioner of Income
Tax vs AL Ramanathan in 1998.

When family settlement is unregistered then,

In a recent case, Thulasidhara v. Narayanappa, 2019 SCC Online SC 645, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that a family arrangement, in the form of a document mentioned the list of properties
which were partitioned, though not registered, would operate as a complete estoppel against the
parties to such a family settlement. It was held that even without registration a written document of
family settlement/family arrangement can be used as corroborative evidence as explaining the
arrangement made thereunder and conduct of the parties.

An FSA need not be compulsorily registered

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the 1966 case of Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimhan, held that an
FSA, by its nature, is not a compulsorily registrable instrument, as it does not create rights in itself. It
found that an FSA would only require registration if it creates any new interest in the family
property. When the document itself materially alters legal rights of other heirs of the properties and
creates new rights, it is compulsorily registrable under s. 17 of the Registration Act, as was held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramavtar Bhama. Since an FSA only
reflects the pre-created interest in the property by the family members, it would be valid even if
unregistered.

Therefore, even an oral, unregistered FSA can supersede existing inheritance rights. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has time and again favoured such family arrangements, and have been eager to
uphold its validity to the exclusion of other instruments creating inheritance rights in the disputed
property. Technical and trivial discrepancies should be overlooked to facilitate a mutually agreeable
instrument. The law has largely favoured family agreements that encourage amicable family
property distribution, avoiding any future disputes.

In Tek Bahadur v. Debi Singh Bhujil and Ors. on 26 February, 1965 the Constitution Bench of this
Court considered the validity of the family arrangement. The question was whether it is required to
 Draft for discussions only
03.08.2022

be compulsorily registered under Section 17 of registration act. This Court, while upholding oral
family arrangement, held that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family
arrangements are reduced into writing. A distinction should be made between the document
containing the terms and recital of family arrangement made under the document and a mere
memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose
of record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation.

In such a case, the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any right in immovable
properties and therefore, does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act. It
was held that a memorandum of family arrangement made earlier which was filed in the court for its
information was held not compulsorily registrable and therefore it can be used in evidence for
collateral purpose, namely, for the proof of family arrangement which was final and binds the
parties.

Korukonda Chalapathi v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar, 2021 SCC Online SC 847

The Division Bench of K.M Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ., held that an unregistered family
settlement document is admissible to be placed “in” evidence if it does not by itself affect the
transaction though the same cannot be allowed “as” evidence. The Bench expressed,

“Merely admitting the Khararunama containing record of the alleged past transaction, is not to be
understood as meaning that if those past transactions require registration, then, the mere
admission, in evidence of the Khararunama and the receipt would produce any legal effect on the
immovable properties in question.”

The Court was dealing with the impugned order of the Telangana High Court, whereby the High
Court had set aside the order passed by the Trial Court by holding that the unregistered and
unstamped family settlement “Khararunama” and receipt of Rs. 2,00,000 by the respondent were
not admissible in evidence.

When the FSA is not registered then it’s evidence value

Registered and unregistered FSA in nutshell,

Registration of family arrangement could be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement
are reduced into writing. A distinction should be made between a document containing the terms of
a family arrangement and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement for the
purpose of the record. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any
rights in immovable properties and therefore, not compulsorily registrable.[4] Ravinder Kaur
Grewal v. Manjit Kaur,  (2020) 9 SCC 706 : AIR 2020 SC 3799 In a recent judgment by the Delhi
High Court, the Judge pronounced that if an understanding has been arrived at between the parties
and it is only written down in a document after the settlement has been arrived at, the same would
not require registration.[5]  Himani Walia v. Hemant Walia,  2022 SCC Online Del 893.The
memorandum of family settlement involved in the instant case was held to not partition the
properties itself but only record the same as an aid of memory.

Enforceability of FSA

Courts are duty-bound to give effect to an FSA .The validity of a family settlement agreement was
first upheld by the 1911 case of Khunni Lal v. Kunwar Gobind Krishna Narain. In this case, the Privy
Council placed a duty on the courts to uphold and give full effect to an arrangement regarded by the
 Draft for discussions only
03.08.2022

parties themselves.As informed above, it is important for the family members who sign the deed to
recognize that the settlement deed has legal force, and all parties agreeing to the terms and
conditions shall abide by it. It shall also be forwarded to the relevant authorities to facilitate the
transfer of property and division in accordance with the terms and conditions of the family
settlement deed. The parties to the family settlement deed must also sign the declaration, no
objection certificate, and other related documents with respect to the transfer of the property.

Provisions

 As informed above, post demise of the owner of the property, his legal heirs inherit the
property he left behind, either according to his preferences as stated in his Will or, if he dies
without leaving a Will, according to the rules of the Succession Act applicable to such
individuals.
 The agreement must follow the fundamental rules of Contract Law. It is impossible to force a
family arrangement.
 This agreement is an instrument of partition and therefore is required to be stamped under
Schedule 1 of Article 45 r/w Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act. However, an oral family
agreement dividing the property does not require stamping.
 The courts have ruled that any property transferred as part of a family arrangement or
division is not subject to capital gains taxation. A family arrangement in which property is
given away cannot be interpreted as a ‘transfer’ for capital gain purposes. As a result, no
capital gain tax is due under Section 45 of the Income-tax Act of 1961.

Krishna Bihari Lal V. Gulabchand, 1971 AIR 1041, SCR 27 (Supreme Court of India) Under this case it
was held that the word ‘family’ has a wider meaning. It cannot be confined to a group of persons
who by law has the right of succession. In a matter of family arrangement, the word ‘family’ is to be
seen in a much wider sense. The following principles emerge from various decisions of the Supreme
Court and High Courts:

 The family settlement must be a bona fide one, so as to resolve family disputes and rival
claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various
members of the family.
 The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or
undue influence.
 The family arrangement may be even oral; in which case no registration is necessary.
 It is well-settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family
arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a
document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the
document and a mere Memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already
been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the Court for making
necessary mutation.
 The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent
title, claim or interest, even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the
parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under
the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person
and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and
 Draft for discussions only
03.08.2022

the family arrangement will be upheld, and the Courts will find no difficulty in giving assent
to the same.
 Even bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims, are settled
by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable, the family arrangement is
final and binding on the parties to the settlement.

This was mentioned in para 10 and 11 of Kale and Ors. v. Deputy Director of
Consolidation and Ors.1976

 The process of reaching an acceptable settlement is, however, usually difficult, and is
facilitated by a third person such as advisor/lawyer or arbitrator.
 In order to settle such existing disputes or avoid any potential litigation among the family
members, such families arrive at a “family arrangement” either by way of a mutually agreed
deed for family settlement or in the form of an arbitration award or a court decree.
 The family arrangement and settlement may be entered among the family members as per
the suggestions given by Arbitrator/Conciliator or it can be advised by the independent
advisors. The Advisor can give report on how the family assets, properties or shares in the
business entities should get distributed among the family members. There is also needed to
check rights and obligations of the third parties on the family arrangement. The advisor
provides independent documentation according to which family members should act or
settle the disputes.

Rattan Singh & Ors. Vs. Nirmal Gill & Ors.,2020 supreme court- effect of fraud under
limitation act

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held:

 The Supreme Court held that there is a presumption that a registered document is validly
executed and to prove otherwise would require the production of a tangible evidence. It
was noted that the document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered and the
onus to prove otherwise is on the person who challenges the said registered document.
The court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the fact of misuse of trust by the
defendants.
 The court observed that, the discrepancies in the 1990 General Power of Attorney is
bound to create some doubt, however, in the absence of any tangible evidence produced
by the plaintiff to support the plea of fraud, it does not take the matter further.
 The Court further held that, for invoking Section 17 of The Limitation Act, 1963, two
ingredients have to be pleaded and duly proved. One is the existence of a fraud and the
other is discovery of such fraud. In the present case, since the plaintiff has failed to
establish the existence of fraud, there is no occasion for its discovery. Therefore, the
plaintiff cannot be extended the benefit under the said provision. 
 Therefore, the Supreme court held that the High Court committed manifest error in
reversing the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Court in that
regard. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the High Court and restored the judgment and decree passed by the first
appellate Court.

Under para 77 and 78,

 Draft for discussions only
03.08.2022

77. Before analysing the correctness of the decisions arrived at, let us see the settled legal position
as to effect of fraud on limitation as prescribed in Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 19639. The said
provision reads as under:

17.- Effect of fraud or mistake. - (1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a
period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, -

(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the Defendant or Respondent or his agent; or

(b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the
fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or

(c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or

(d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the Plaintiff or applicant has been
fraudulently concealed from him,

the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the Plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud
or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed
document, until the Plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed
document or compelling its product.

78. Therefore, for invoking Section 17 of the 1963 Act, two ingredients have to be pleaded and duly
proved. One is existence of a fraud and the other is discovery of such fraud. In the present case,
since the Plaintiff failed to establish the existence of fraud, there is no occasion for its discovery.
Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be extended the benefit under the said provision.

Himani Walia Vs Hemant Walia & Ors ,2022(Delhi High Court)  

Delhi High Court held that family settlements are not required to be compulsorily registered, and
stamp duty is not required to be compulsorily paid in respect of the same, when the settlement has
been arrived at initially as an oral partition and is thereafter put into writing for the purpose of
information. Under para 10,

10.Thus, it is clear that family settlements are not required to be compulsorily registered, and stamp
duty is not required to be compulsorily paid in respect of the same, when the settlement has been
arrived at initially as an oral partition and is thereafter put into writing for the purpose of
information. Considering the said position, it is clarified that there is no requirement of valuation of
the suit properties in the present case. The payment of stamp duty by the legal heirs of Late Sh. S.S.
Walia and Dr. Urmila Walia shall stand waived. Notices issued by the various authorities shall also
stand cancelled and withdrawn, without any further orders.

Nitin Jain v. Anuj Jain & Anr,2007 Delhi high court

The court held that a memorandum recording an oral family settlement which has already taken
place is not an instrument dividing or agreeing to divide property and is therefore, not required to
be stamped. The relevant observations from the said judgment have been extracted below:

"6. A Partition Deed is an instrument of partition and has been defined in Section 2(15) of the Stamp
Act. The said investment is chargeable to duty as per Schedule 1. Article 45 of the Stamp Act. Stamp
duty payable on an instrument of partition is @ 1% of the value of the property. A decree of
 Draft for discussions only
03.08.2022

partition passed by a Court is also an instrument of partition as defined in Section 2(15) of the Stamp
Act, which reads as under:

"2(15). "Instrument of partition" means any instrument whereby co-owners of any property divide
or agree to divide such property in severalty, and includes also a final order for effecting a partition
passed by any revenue-authority or any Civil Court and an award by an arbitrator directing a
partition."

7. However, Courts have recognised oral partitions in cases of joint families. An oral partition is not
an instrument of partition as contemplated under Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act. Therefore, as it is
not an instrument. on an oral partition no stamp duty is payable.

8. The Courts have recognised that it is legally permissible to arrive at an oral family settlement
dividing/partitioning the properties and thereafter record a memorandum in writing whereby the
existing joint owners for the sake of propriety record that the property has been already partitioned
or divided. The memorandum does not by itself partition the properties but only records for
information what has already been done by oral partition. The memorandum itself does not create
or extinguish any rights.

Recent case law for registration in FSA

Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama,2018 Supreme court

The issue of registration of family settlements is no longer res integra. If an understanding has been
arrived at between the parties previously, and it is only written down in a document after the
settlement has been arrived at, the same would not require registration. This is the settled position
of law as is clear from Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation [(1976) 3 SCC 119]. Taking into
account the decision in Kale (supra), the Supreme Court in a subsequent judgment in Sita Ram
Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama [(2018) 15 SCC 130: AIR 2018 SC 3057] has settled this position of law by
holding as under:

"10. The only question which needs to be considered in the present case is as to whether document
dated 09.09.1994 could have been accepted by the trial court in evidence or trial court has rightly
held the said document inadmissible. The Plaintiff claimed the document dated 09.09.1994 as
memorandum of family settlement. Plaintiff's case is that earlier partition took place in the life time
of the father of the parties on 25.10.1992 which was recorded as memorandum of family settlement
on 09.09.1994. There are more than one reasons due to which we are of the view that the document
dated 09.09.1994 was not mere memorandum of family settlement rather a family settlement itself.
Firstly, on 25.10.1992, the father of the parties was himself owner of both, the residence and shop
being self-acquired properties of Devi Dutt Verma. The High Court has rightly held that the said
document cannot be said to be a Will, so that father could have made Will in favour of his two sons,
Plaintiff and Defendant. Neither the Plaintiff nor Defendant had any share in the property on the day
when it is said to have been partitioned by Devi Dutt Verma. Devi Dutt Verma died on 10.09.1993.
After his death Plaintiff, Defendant and their mother as well as sisters become the legal heirs under
Hindu Succession Act, 1955 inheriting the property being a class I heir. The document dated
09.09.1994 divided the entire property between Plaintiff and Defendant which document is also
claimed to be signed by their mother as well as the sisters. In any view of the matter, there is
relinquishment of the rights of other heirs of the properties, hence, courts below are right in their
conclusion that there being relinquishment, the document dated 09.09.1994 was compulsorily
registrable Under Section 17 of the Registration Act.
 Draft for discussions only
03.08.2022

Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. Vs Manjit Kaur & Ors, 2019(Supreme Court)

The issue before the Court was whether a memorandum of   settlement required registration as by
way of said document the interest in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/ was transferred
in favour of the plaintiff Supreme Court stated that, as noted clause (v) of Section 17(2) is attracted,
which pertains to execution of any document creating or extinguishing right, title or interest in an
immovable property amongst the family members. Considering the above, SC have no hesitation in
concluding that the High Court committed manifest error in interfering with and in particular
reversing the well-considered decision of the first appellate Court, which had justly concluded that
document dated 10.3.1988 executed between the parties was merely a memorandum of settlement,
and it did not require registration. It must follow that the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit, as
granted by the first appellate Court ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court and
more so, in a casual manner, as adverted to earlier. Having said that, it is unnecessary to examine
the alternative plea taken by the plaintiff to grant decree as prayed on the ground of having become
owner by adverse possession. For the completion of record, we may mention that in fact, the trial
Court had found that the possession of the plaintiff was only permissive possession and that finding
has not been disturbed by the first appellate Court. In such a case, it is doubtful that the plaintiff can
be heard to pursue relief, as prayed on the basis of his alternative plea of adverse possession. Be
that as it may, SC deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and restore the judgment
and decree passed by the first appellate Court in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, this appeal is
allowed.

Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the documents which create, declare, assign, limit or
extinguish any right, title or interest of the value of Rs. 100 and upwards, are to be registered. Under
Section 49 of the Registration Act no document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the
Transfer of Property Act to be registered, shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting
an immovable property.

Role of FSA in evidence value

Thus, as provided by Section 49 of the Registration Act, any document, which is not registered as
required under the law would be inadmissible in evidence and cannot therefore be produced and
proved under Section 91 of the Evidence Act.

In the light of the above, what is the legal position with regard to a family settlement or a family
arrangement in respect of property. Whether such family settlement or arrangement, which is not
registered, can be received in evidence.

This issued was considered by a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Kale v. Deputy
Director of Consolidation (1976) 3 SCC 119. It was held that by virtue of a family settlement or
arrangement, members of a family descending from a common ancestor or a near relation seek to
sink their differences and disputes, settle and resolve their conflicting claims or disputed titles once
for all in order to buy peace of mind and bring about complete harmony and goodwill in the family.
Family arrangements are governed by a special equity peculiar to themselves, and will be enforced if
honestly made, although they have not been meant as a compromise, but have proceeded from an
error of all parties, originating in mistake or ignorance of fact as to what their rights actually are, or
of the points on which their rights actually depend.
 Draft for discussions only
03.08.2022

The Supreme Court further held that the object of the family arrangement is to protect the family
from long-drawn litigation and create hatred and bad blood between the various members of the
family. It promotes social justice through wider distribution of wealth. It was, therefore, observed
that Courts lean in favour of family arrangements. Technical or trivial grounds are overlooked. Rule
of estoppel is pressed into service to prevent unsettling of a settled dispute.

It was held that family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary.
Registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into
writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between the document containing the terms and
recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared
after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for
information of the court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does
not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the
mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable.

It was held that, therefore, a document which is in the nature of a memorandum of an earlier family
arrangement and which is filed before the court for its information for mutation of names is not
compulsorily registrable and therefore can be used in evidence of the family arrangement and is
final and is binding on the parties.

In a recent case, Thulasidhara v. Narayanappa, 2019 SCC Online SC 645, the Supreme Court has held
that a family arrangement, in the form of a document that mentioned the list of properties which
were partitioned, though not registered, would operate as a complete estoppel against the parties
to such a family settlement. It was held that even without registration a written document of family
settlement/family arrangement can be used as corroborative evidence as explaining the
arrangement made thereunder and conduct of the parties.

In Tek Bahadur Bhujel vs Debi Singh Bhujil, the Court had considered that a family arrangement can
be reached verbally. Its terms may be written down as a memorandum on what was agreed upon by
the parties. The memorandum does not have to be prepared with the intention of being used as a
foundation for the parties’ future title. It’s normally made as a record of what was decided upon so
that there are no ambiguities in the future. Only when the parties reduce the family agreement in
writing with the intention of using that writing as evidence of what they have negotiated and when
the arrangement is brought on by the document as such, does the document require registration
since it becomes a document of title declaring for the future what rights in what properties the
parties hold?

Further in Ramgopal vs Tulshi Ram and Anr, the following principles were established:

 It is possible to make a family settlement deed verbally.

 If the decision is taken verbally and there is no written record then there is no need for
registration.
 If it could have been made verbally but was reduced to the form of a “document”,
registration is required (when the value exceeds Rs. 100).
 Whether the words have been “reduced to the form of a document” in each case is a matter
of reality that must be decided based on the meaning and phraseology of the writing, as well
as the circumstances and intent for which it was written.
 Draft for discussions only
03.08.2022

In Mt. Jileba v. Parmesra, it was stated that “if a family agreement is made orally and information
about its terms is submitted to a Court in writing, that writing would not be considered to be a deed
of family arrangement and would not be required to be registered.”

Thulasidhara v. Narayanappa, 2019 SCC Online SC 645,

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169349322/

the Supreme Court has held that a family arrangement, in the form of a document that mentioned
the list of properties which were partitioned, though not registered, would operate as a complete
estoppel against the parties to such a family settlement. It was held that even without registration a
written document of family settlement/family arrangement can be used as corroborative evidence
as explaining the arrangement made thereunder and conduct of the parties.