JUDGMENT
Boys, J.
1. This appeal raises the hitherto much debated question as to the effect of the non-registration of a document presented to a mutation Court asking for the names of the applicants to be entered in a particular way, and at the same time setting forth, in one form or another, that the parties have come to an agreement between themselves. The document in question says that the parties have consented amongst themselves (musalehat hui) to the effect that certain areas of land shall remain in the possession of the several applicants respectively that they will be liable for their own shares of the rent and shall have no concern with each other’s shares and they will be bound by this solenamah. After setting forth these facts they pray that entry may be made in the revenue records in accordance therewith.
2. Entry in the revenue records was made accordingly, and for some nine or ten years the parties have acted on this arrangement, We have been referred to some 12 or 15 decisions of this Court, and I have carefully examined these and a number of others. It is not necessary to re-state the old arguments on this side and on that, which have been urged many times over and reported in many decisions. It is clear possibly to pick out isolated words and phrases in this document which, it may be argued, indicate, though perhaps indefinitely, a declaration of title. I am putting it in the most extreme way in the plaintiff’s favour. On the other hand I agree wholly with the view of Mr. Justice Lindsay, then Judicial Commissioner of Oudh Court, and reported, as Satrohan Lal v. Nageshar Prasad [1916] 19 O.C. 75. It is desirable, in my opinion, not to found a decision in these cases on a particular phrase here and there, but to take a broad view of the circumstances under which the particular document was written and then keeping in mind that broad view to determine the matter in accordance with the principles laid down in the case to which I have referred and which are in essential the principles adopted by the same Judge and by Mr. Justice Sulaiman in Bakhtawar v. Sunder Lal A.I.R. 1926 All. 173.
3. Taking the facts of this case broadly it is clear that there was a dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants, each of them claiming to be entitled to the property of the deceased. Mutation proceedings commenced and they were settled between the parties. There is nothing whatever to show that there would have been any necessity for a document being drawn up between the parties at all, but for the fact that it was necessary to secure the termination of the mutation proceedings and necessary to secure that termination in conformity with the arrangement arrived at between the parties. For this purpose it was necessary to set forth the terms upon which the parties had come to an agreement in reference to the particular matter of the entry of their names against particular portions. I would further refer to the decisions of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mahamed Musa v. Aghore Kumar Ganguli A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 27. Applying the principles of those cases and more especially the principles set out in the judgments of Mr. Justice Lindsay and Mr. Justice Sulaiman, I would hold that the document in question was prepared merely with a view to indicating to the revenue Courts the manner in which the parties had agreed that their names should be entered. I think it would be wrong to hang upon the phrases that the parties would pay their own shares of the rent and be bound by the terms upon which they had agreed as sat out in the document-a finding that the document created or declared a title. As to the meaning of the term “declares” reference may be made to the judgment of Mr. Justice Lindsay, Satrohan Lal v. Nageshar Prasad [1916] 19 O.C. 75.
4. I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.
Sulaiman, J.
5. I fully agree.
