Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. The controversy relating to the applicability of provisions of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act (16 of 1908) has been settled by the Honble Supreme Court of India in a very recent case of Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Others reported as : A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 196: 1996(1) ACJ 71 (S.C.). While elaborating the provisions governing the mandatory registration of decrees, settlement or orders their Lordships enumerated the law as follows :-

The legal position qua Clause (vi) of Section 17(2) can be summarised as below-

(1) Compromise decree if bona fide, in the sense that the compromise is not a device to obviate payment of stamp duty and frustrate the law relating to registration would not require registration. In a converse situation, it would require registration.

(2) If the compromise decree were to create for the first time right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of Rs 100/- or upwards in favour of 3any party to the suit, the decree or order would require registration.

(3) If the decree were not to attract any of the clauses of sub- section (1) of Section 17, it is apparent that the decree would not require registration.

(4) If the decree were not to embody the terms of compromise, benefit from the terms of compromise cannot be derived, even if a suit were to be disposed of because of the compromise in question.

(5) If the property dealt with by the decree be not the "Subject matter of the suit or proceeding" Clause (vi) of sub-section (2) would not operate.

Any other view would find the mischief of avoidance of registration, which requires payment of stamp duty, embedded in she decree or order. The Court should therefore examine in each case whether the parties have pre-existing right to the immovable property, or whether under the order or decree of the Court one party has having right, title or interest therein agreed or suffered to extinguish the same and created right, title or interest in present in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- or upwards in favour of other party for the first time, either by compromise or pretended consent. If latter be the position the document is compulsorily registerable.

Applicability of this judgment to the facts of the present case is the precise question that falls for determination in this Regular Second Appeal before this court.

2. The facts necessary for such determination are that one Sadhu was owner of House No.56() in village Beh Dulo, Tehsil Dasuya and land measuring 6 Kanal 17 Maria Khasra No.238 in the same village. He was unmarried and died issueless. Sadhu is stated to have executed registered Will dated 2.8.1976 in favour of one Shri Bishamber defendant No. I in the suit. Bishamber also died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives Hans Raj etc. were brought on record. The plaintiff in the suit claimed mat he was intending to file a suit to challenge the validity of this will in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant but in the meanwhile the matter was got compromised by the village respectable and a family settlement was effected and written between the parties. According to this family settlement the suit land and the house in dispute were given to the plaintiff as owner. Remaining land of Sadhu deceased was given to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in equal shares. The plaintiff further claimed that he continued in possession of the suit land as well as tie house since death of Sadhu and entries in the revenue record were made with regard to the factum of his possession. The suit was contested by the defendant who pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit The alleged ownership and possession of the plaintiff was denied. The defendants submitted that under the will they were entitled to the aforesaid property from Bishamber being his natural heirs as he had become the absolute owner of this property and mutation in revenue record with regard to their ownership was duly sanctioned and recorded. The factum of family settlement/writing was denied.

The trial Court framed the following issues:.-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed house on the basis of a family settlement as alleged in the plaint OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has become the owner of the suit property by adverse possession OPP

3. Whether Sadhu Singh (deceased) executed a registered will dated 2.8.86 in favour of defendant No. 1, if so, its effect OPP

4. Whether the suit is within limitation OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus-standi to file the present suit OPD.

6. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable OPD.

7. Relief.

After framing the above issues and recording evidence led by respective parties, decided the question of limitation in favour of the plaintiff. Further the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to partial relief and decreed the suit to the extent that plaintiff was in possession of the property but not as owner. The learned Judge further observed that owners can obtain possession legally but not forcibly. It needs to be mentioned here that the trial Court had relied upon this family settlement/writing which was exhibited on record as P.2.

3. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 30.6.1991 and he preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur. The learned District Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 10.11.1994 accepted the appeal and modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court by holding that the plaintiff-appellant was in possession of the land and the house as an owner and directed the revenue records to be corrected accordingly This has resulted in filing of the present appeal before this Court by the defendants in the suit.

4. The moot point which requires to be noticed in the present case is that the learned First Appellate Court not only relied upon the family settlement/writing Ex.P.2 but also held that the said document did not require any registration. The finding of the trial Court that Ex.P.2 was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration was disturbed by the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court also directed change in the revenue record on the basis of Ex.P.2.

5. From this at least one fact is clear that the suit of the plaintiff was wholly based upon and decreed by the Court upon the strength of Ex.P.2, the alleged family settlement/memorandum/writing. But for Ex.P.2 being admissible in evidence and being read lawfully in evidence as a document of the plaintiff, the suit of the plaintiff would have failed. Thus this moot question takes the Court to the language of Ex.P.2 which has to be read with great care. Copy of Ex.P.2 was provided to the Court by the leaned counsel for the parties and was read in open court as the appeal was being decided at the show cause stage only. A bare reading of Ex.P.2 clearly shows and indicates unambiguously that it was decided on that date of writing itself that parties have settled their disputes by the said writing. It further specifically stated that on that very day it was decided to give to Mukhtiar Singh (Plaintiff the house and land in question. The parties had further agreed by means of this writing to execute a sale-deed in future and take other actions as may be necessary. The writing was being recorded to avoid any further disputes in future.

6. This language of Ex. P. 2 indicates that there were certain disputes between the parties which were settled by writing and for the first time it was decided to give the house and land in question to Mukhtiar Singh, respondent in this appeal. Reference to earlier disputes cannot be inferred to acceptance of the fact that the matter was settled between the parties orally or otherwise prior to the execution of Ex.P.2 even if it is taken to be properly executed on that date. The title, right or any interest of Mukhtiar Singh in regard to the land and house in dispute was created by Ex.P.2 for the first time.

7. It was neither a confirmation of preexisting rights nor Ex.P.2 referred to any previous settlement between the parties. If a writing, settlement or memorandum itself decides the rights and obligation of parties for the first time and consequently creates right, title or interest in an immovable property valuing more than Rs. 100/-, then such a document would require registration because the document has itself created a right and not confirmed a preexisting right. Furthermore, Ex.P.2 even did not make any reference or accepted the alleged possessory rights of the plaintiff, as claimed by Mukhtiar Singh in the plaint. The revenue records till that date had never shown Mukhtiar Singh as owner of the property. The language of Ex.P.2 read with other evidence on record, leaves no doubt that Ex.P.2 for the first time created accepted rights in the immovable property in favour of the plaintiff. The parties had agreed to take steps in furtherance to Ex.P.2 in future. It neither accepted nor confirmed any preexisting title, interest or right in the property in dispute.

8. The law with regard to registration of such document has been consistent. But it has been developed by each subsequent pronouncement of the highest court of the land. In the case of Maturi Pullaiah and Another v. Maturi Narasimhan and Others, : A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1836 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under :-

The family arrangement will need the registration only if it creates any interest in immovable property in present in favour of the parties mentioned therein. In case however, no such interest is created, the document will be valid despite its nonregistration and will not be hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act.

Again in the case of Kale and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, : A.I.R. 1976 SC 807 [LQ/SC/1976/20] the Supreme Court reiterated the above principle with approval but enlarged the scope of an oral settlement which is acted upon between the parties in the following observations:-

The family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary. The 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. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and is, therefore, not compulsorily registerable.

Applying the above well settled principle of law that if a document does not confirm or accepts preexisting rights, it cannot be said to be a memorandum or settlement which does not require registration. In the present case language of Ex.P.2 does not indicate confirmation of any pre-existing rights. In fact it only creates rights in present. This fact is further established from the evidence led by the defendants in the suit that the revenue entries continued to be in the name of the defendants and their predecessor-in-interest as owners for all this time. If the matter had already been settled there was no question of not acting upon it and why would the dispute arise between the parties. On the one hand plaintiff himself admits that he wanted to challenge the will of 1976 but did not challenge the same for all this period. He chose not to give any dates and any explanation in his evidence as to why he waited for such a long period i.e. from August, 1976 till the institution of the suit in the year 1987. Once it is held that Ex.P.2 is a partition document which has created title and interest of the parties in the property in dispute for the first time, then such writing/settlement would require registration under the provisions of Section 17(2). Non-registration of this document would be hit by bar of Section 17 and would be inadmissible in evidence The document which is inadmissible in evidence cannot be relied upon or looked into by the Court I have no hesitation in holding that Ex.P.2 is an inadmissible document and the finding of the trial court to that extent was correct. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of his court in the case of Mool Chand v. Udho Ram 1994(3) RRR 127 to argue that such a document like Ex.P.2 does not require registration. The facts of that case were entirely different and secondly the court as a matter of fact had found that narration of document clearly shows that there was oral settlement/writing between the parties which was acted upon and the document was only the memorandum to confirm such terms This judgment is certainly of no help to the respondents in the present case.

9. The oral evidence led on behalf of the appellants read with the revenue record which has the rebuttable presumption in their favour in contrast to the weak evidence led by the plaintiff and specifically the fact that the whole case of the plaintiff was admittedly based on Ex.P.2 which is an inadmissible document The irresistible conclusion is that the suit of the plaintiff must fail. Document Ex P 2 being an unregistered document and consequently inadmissible does not create any right in law in favour of the plaintiff. It appears from the record that the plaintiff had never prayed for decree for injunction against the defendants. Consequently the relief which is not prayed in the plaint cannot be decreed by a Court. It is settled law that in a suit of the present kind, the Court cannot grant a relief which is not specifically prayed for in the plaint and the opposite party has not been given an appropriate opportunity to meet such a claim.

For the reasons afore-stated this appeal is accepted. Judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court, dated 10.11.1994 are set aside. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree be drawn accordingly.