JUDGMENT
S.K. Agarwal, J.
1. By this suit the plaintiff has prayed for declaratory decree against the defendant in terms of Oral Settlement dated 9th March, 1999 which was reduced in writing by way of “MEMORANDUM” of Family Settlement on 10th April, 1999. The prayer clause describes respective shares in properties as under:-
A. PROPERTY IN THE SHARE OF THE PLAINTIFF, SHRI VIJAY KUMAR JAIN :-
i) Half of the portion of the Ground Floor of the property No. C-5/34, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi, Along with Garage together with proportionate, undivided and undemaracted interest in the leasehold plot of land under such portion as shown green in site plan annexed hereto as “A-2”.
ii) Property at Delhi Agra High Way, 92 Milestone, Village Karman, Hodal Barrier, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana (which was in the name of Shri Sanjay Jain, Defendant) annexed hereto in the plan marked “A-3”.
B. PROPERTY IN THE SHARE OF THE DEFENDANT, SHRI SANJAY JAIN :-
i) Half of the portion of the Ground Floor of the property No. C-5/34, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi, together with proportionate, undivided and undemaracted interest in the leasehold plot of land under such portion as shown red in site plan annexed hereto as “A-2”.
ii) Half portion of the ground floor in the commercial building situated at 8-A, Connaught Place, New Delhi together with proportionate undivided and undermaracted interest in the leasehold plot of land underneath such building shown as pink in the site plan annexed hereto as “A-1″ which was allotted to the Plaintiff vide Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 15.8.1998 and decree dated 19.1988 as explained in Paragraph 6 of this Plaint Along with the portion which was relinquished by Shri Ashok Kumar Jain to the Plaintiff as mentioned in Paragraph 8 of this Plaint.”
2. The defendant filed written statement admitting oral family settlement as well as written Memorandum of Family Settlement. However, raised the plea that Memorandum was not registered and, therefore, same is not enforceable. The ownership of the garage portion was also challenged which has been now given up. The memorandum of oral settlement is Ex. P1.
3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that it was also given up in reply to the application under Oral 12 Rule 6 CPC of the plaintiff (I.A. No. 7313/2002). As the issue raised is only legal, learned counsel for the parties submit that the suit be disposed at this stage itself on the basis of the material already on record. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff argue that the Oral Family Settlement is not required to be registered and placed reliance on Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Devi Singh Bhujil and Ors. wherein it was held as under:
“Family arrangement as such can be arrived at orally. Its terms may be recorded in writing as a memorandum of what had been agreed upon between the parties. The memorandum need not be prepared for the purpose of being used as a document on which future title of the parties be found. It is usually prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon. So that there be no hazy notions about it in future. It is only when the parties reduce the family arrangement in writing with the purpose of using that writing as proof of what they had arranged and where the arrangement is brought about by the document as such, that the document would require registration as it is then that it would be a document of title declaring for future what rights in what properties the parties possess.”
5. The above decision was followed by the Supreme Court in Roshan Singh and Ors. v. Zile Singh and Ors. , AIR 1988 SC 881 and by this Court in Jasbir Singh Bajaj v. Gurdeep Singh Bajaj , .
6. In this case, admittedly there was an oral family settlement. The terms of the settlement were recorded subsequently in the form of a memorandum. The document Ex. P1 to my mind is a memorandum of what has already taken place, therefore, it would not require compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. In view of the settled position of law, the objection raised by the defendant in the written statement is not tenable. In fact learned counsel for defendant fairly conceded the same, during the course of the arguments. The suit is accordingly decreed, in terms of prayer clause. The suit and all pending applications stand disposed of.