JUDGMENT : Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. 1. This is plaintiffs’ second appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, District Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 2A/2011 by which the appeal has been dismissed against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2010 passed by the learned 16 th Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 30A/2009 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 2. The parties have been described as per their description before the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 30A/2009. 3. The second appeal has been admitted by this Court on 01.07.2025 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether both the Courts below were justified in dismissing claim of the plaintiff/appellant on the count that the family settlement is not properly stamped, registered and attested in violation of provisions of Registration Act, 1908?” 4. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that: (a) The plaintiffs have filed a suit on 21.04.2009 for declaration and permanent injunction before learned 13 th Civil Judge, Class-II Raipur mainly contending that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are real brothers and they have two more brothers namely Sohanlal Jain and Dilip Kumar Jain. Their father Shri Kanwarlal Jain expired on 15.03.2008. A family arrangement was executed on 16.04.1992 between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and his brothers including the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff have taken possession of their respective shares as per the family arrangement. (b) It is also the case of the plaintiff that late Kanwar Lal Jain had purchased the land after selling the gold ornaments of his wife bearing Kharsa No. 228/1, area 0.040 acre and Khasra No. 229, area 0.036 hectare through sale deed dated 10.12.1974 in the name of defendant No. 1 which is hereinafter referred to as “suit property”. Since the property was purchased in the name of defendant No. 1, therefore, it was recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 only and in the year 1984 for his business purpose he required loan, therefore, mortgaged the property in the Central Bank of India, Vivekananda Ashram, Raipur. Since the property was purchased in the name of defendant No. 1, therefore, it was recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 only and in the year 1984 for his business purpose he required loan, therefore, mortgaged the property in the Central Bank of India, Vivekananda Ashram, Raipur. (c) Thereafter, the plaintiff and defendant’s father has purchased land bearing Khasra No. 227, area 0.057 hectare and Khasra No. 228/2, area 0.042 hectare in the name of plaintiff, but the original title holder of these properties is their father. Since the plaintiff required money for his business purposes, therefore, he has mortgaged property in the Central Bank of India, Vivekananda Ashram, Raipur and obtained the loan. (d) Subsequently a family settlement was executed in presence of father of the plaintiff and defendant on 16.04.1992 according to which the land bearing Khasra No. 228/1 and land Khasra No. 229 were mortgaged by the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff has to pay the loan of the bank account, accordingly the plaintiff has paid loan to the bank and obtained “No Objection Certificate” on 29.09.2000. It is also the case of the plaintiff that at the time of family settlement, the plaintiff was in possession of the property as a title holder. It is also the case of the plaintiff that after getting redemption of mortgage property, the plaintiff has requested the defendant No.1 to record the suit property in the name of plaintiff, but he has not considered the same, and also not accepted the family arrangement and started interfering in possession of the property. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 raised an objection before the Tehsildar on 16.03.2009 which was rejected, hence he has filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the title holder of the suit property and defendant No. 1 be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the suit properly. 5. The defendant No. 1 has filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint mainly contended that: (a) No family arrangement was executed on 16.04.1992 and it is forged and fabricated. It has also been contended that the defendant No. 1 has purchased the property bearing Khasra No. 228/1 area 0.040 hectater and Khasra No. 229, area 0.036 hectare situated at Dumar Talab, P.H.No. R.N.M. 1, Raipur on 10.12.1977 from the self acquired property. It has also been contended that the defendant No. 1 has purchased the property bearing Khasra No. 228/1 area 0.040 hectater and Khasra No. 229, area 0.036 hectare situated at Dumar Talab, P.H.No. R.N.M. 1, Raipur on 10.12.1977 from the self acquired property. It is denied that Kanwar Lal Jai has purchased the suit property after selling the ornament of his wife. It has been contended that the defendant No. 1 has left his original resident as District Nandurbar, Maharashtra and started living at Durg. He was employed in the Oswal Ispat Tatiband Raipur and the family members were having financial crisis, therefore, all the family members were called at Durg by him and he has purchased the suit property from his own income, therefore, the plaintiff has no right. It has also been contended that the plaintiff was having tender-age at that time and he has no source of income, as such due to love and affection he has purchased another property bearing Khasra No. 227 area 0.057 hectare and Khasra No. 228/2 area 0.024 hectare which was adjacent to earlier purchased property through the sale deed dated 20.08.1975 in the name of his brother Mohanlal Jain. It has also been contended that the land situated at Tatibandh bearing Khasra No. 429/17 area 12,294 sq.ft. in the name of Sohanlal and started Sandeep Casting in which Mohanlal, Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Tejkaran and Sohanlal were partner and defendant No. 1 has continued with his service. It has also been contended that three brothers and father were involved in the Casting Iron Industry and subsequently all the family members started living together at Quarter No. 215/B infront of Bharat Mata School Tatibandh, Raipur and entire business was handed over to Mohanlal plaintiff. (b) It is also the case of the defendant No. 1 that Mohanlal by committing fraud has obtained signature on the stamp paper for some business purpose wherein the family arrangement has been prepared, thus, it is forged and fabricated document and the family arrangement is not acceptable to the defendant No. 1. (c) It is also the case of the defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff by committing fraud has obtained loan from the Central Bank of India and fabricated the forged family arrangement on 16.04.1992. It has also been contended that the plaintiff has sold the entire material of the factory and also misappropriated Rs. (c) It is also the case of the defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff by committing fraud has obtained loan from the Central Bank of India and fabricated the forged family arrangement on 16.04.1992. It has also been contended that the plaintiff has sold the entire material of the factory and also misappropriated Rs. 25 lacs after selling the factory and the land. It is also the case of the defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff by concealing the fact from other brothers and defendant No. 1 has fraudulently recorded his name in the municipal record and since the entire suit property is recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 and in his possession, as such, no question arises for mutating the name of the plaintiff. It has also been contended that the plaintiff has never used the forged family arrangement till their father was alive and he himself withdrew the application on 20.05.2009 submitted before the Tehsildar for mutating his name. Thus, it has been prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court has framed as many as 7 issues. Issue No. 1, 2, 3, 4 are relevant, therefore, they are extracted below:- ^^1- D;k oknh izfroknh Ø- 1 o muds HkkbZ;ksa ds e/; fnukad 16-04- 1992 dks ikfjokfjd O;oLFkki= fu"iknu fd;k x;k Fkk\\ 2- D;k oknh ds firk Jh daoj yky tSu us viuh iRuh ds tsoj cspdj ,oa vius ikl j[ks :i;ksa ls ekStk Mwej rkykc fLFkr [k-ua- 228@1 jdck 0-040 gs- o [k-ua- 229 jdck 0-036 gs- Hkwfe ¼oknxzLr Hkwfe½ iathd`r foØ; i= ds ek/;e ls Ø; fd;k Fkk\\ 3- D;k oknh ds firk us fnukad 20-08-1975 dks mijksDr Hkwfe ¼oknxzLr Hkwfe½ ls layXu [k-ua- 227 jdck 0-057 gs- rFkk [k-ua- 228@2 jdck 0- 024 gs- dks oknh ds uke ls Ø; fd;k Fkk\\ 4- D;k oknh ikfjokfjd O;oLFkk i= fnukad 16-04-1992 ds vuqlkj oknxzLr Hkwfe dk ,dek= Lokeh vkSj vkf/kiR;/kkjh gS\\** 7. The plaintiffs to substantiate his case has exhibited Family Arrangement Deed (Exhibit P/1), Deed (Exhibit P/2), Letter of Central Bank of India (Exhibit P/3 & P/4), Objection Letter (Exhibit P/5), Acknowledgement (Exhibit P/6) & Objection on Registration (Exhibit P/7). In order to substantiate his case the plaintiff has examined himself as PW/1, Vijay Sagarkar (PW/2) and Sanjay Shukla (PW/3). 8. The plaintiffs to substantiate his case has exhibited Family Arrangement Deed (Exhibit P/1), Deed (Exhibit P/2), Letter of Central Bank of India (Exhibit P/3 & P/4), Objection Letter (Exhibit P/5), Acknowledgement (Exhibit P/6) & Objection on Registration (Exhibit P/7). In order to substantiate his case the plaintiff has examined himself as PW/1, Vijay Sagarkar (PW/2) and Sanjay Shukla (PW/3). 8. The plaintiff No. 1 examined himself as PW/1 and in examination-in-chief he has reiterated stand taken in the plaint. The said witness was extensively cross-examined by the defendant No. 1 wherein he has admitted in paragraph 23 of his cross-examination that the family arrangement has been prepared by the counsel and his nephew Sandeep Kumar Jain S/o Tejkaran Jain has gone to the counsel for preparing family arrangement. He has also admitted that in the family arrangement, there is no signature of Sandeep Jain. He has also admitted that entire material of factory has been sold by him and also admitted that he has used Rs. 25 Lacs for his own purpose and no share has been given from this amount. He has also admitted that factory which was situated in the land that has been proceeded in the name of Sohanlal younger brother. He has stated that the family arrangement has been prepared by his father, but as an executant his father’s signature is not there. 9. The plaintiff examined the advocate Vijay Sagarkar (PW/2) who has stated that on 15.04.1992 at evening time in his office, Mohalal Jain and Sandeep Jain S/o Tejkaran Jain have appeared for preparation of the family arrangement and they have told that consent of the family members have already been obtained. He has also stated that they have purchased the stamp paper and asked him to prepare the family arrangement, accordingly, they have taken the family arrangement on 16.04.1992. The counsel was extensively cross-examined and he has admitted that in the draft, as a drafting counsel his name has not been mentioned and no one has put signature infront of him and he is not aware Mohanlal has obtained signature of which person. He has also stated that he cannot say that Mohanlal has taken the person before the notary. He has also admitted that on 15.04.1992, Tejkaran Jain was not produced before him. He has also stated that he cannot say that Mohanlal has taken the person before the notary. He has also admitted that on 15.04.1992, Tejkaran Jain was not produced before him. He has also admitted that the parties of family arrangement have not shown any documents with regard to the property and the suit property is recorded in whose name cannot be told by him. The plaintiff examined the Branch Manager of Central Bank of India (PW-3) who stated that since the record pertaining to loan account of Sandeep Casting is seven years old, therefore, it has been destroyed by the Bank and to substantiate his contention he has placed the circular of the Bank. 10. The defendant No. 1 exhibited document Certified copy of order dated 26.02.2009 (Exhibit D/1). In order to substantiate his case the defendant No. 1 has examined himself as DW/1, Somanth (DW/2) and Sohan Lal Jain (DW/3). 11. The defendant No. 1 examined himself and in his examination-in-chief he has reiterated the stand taken in the written statement. The witness in his cross-examination has admitted that in the family settlement Exhibit P/1 in every page he has put his signature and voluntarily stated in the blank stamp, it has been signed. He has also stated that in Exhibit P/1 at page No. 4 his father’s signature is not there. He has also admitted that in the family settlement Sohanlal and Dilip Kumar’s Signature are there. He has admitted that he has taken loan for Sandeep Casting firm from the Central Bank of India. He has also admitted the contents made in page 2 of Exhibit P/1 wherein it has been stated regarding loan of Sandeep Casting. He has also admitted that this loan has not been repaid by him or his wife voluntarily stated that after selling of the company’s property by the plaintiff, it has been paid. He has also admitted that he has not taken any action against the plaintiff for selling company’s property. He has also admitted that Sandeep has also done the business in the name of Vaibhav Casting and also admitted that against Sohanlal he has not made any complaint to the police station regarding misuse of loan amount. He has admitted that the suit has been filed for the land which has been purchased in the year 1974-75 and also admitted that father has sold the property at Nandurbar. He has admitted that the suit has been filed for the land which has been purchased in the year 1974-75 and also admitted that father has sold the property at Nandurbar. He has admitted that when he has come from Maharashtra to Rajnandgaon, his age was 19-20 years and also admitted that the advocate is his son’s lawyer also. 12. Sohanlal (DW-2) who examined in support of defendant No. 1 in his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit reiterated the stand taken by the defendant in written statement and in he has admitted that the suit property was purchased in the year 1974 and Sandeep Casting Factory was started in the year 1977. 13. The learned trial Court appreciating the evidence and material on record has dismissed the suit on 11.10.2010 by recording its finding that the suit property is a joint Hindu family property as it has been purchased from the income of joint Hindu family and the plaintiff has not arrayed all the parties of family settlement as party to the suit, who are the necessary parties and in their absence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. He has also recorded its finding that the plaintiff is unable to establish that he became a sole owner or possession holder of the suit property in view of the family settlement arrived at between them on 16.04.1992 and accordingly it has dismissed the same. 14. Being aggrieved with this judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred first appeal before the learned first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23.11.2016 has dismissed the appeal. The learned first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal, has recorded its finding in paragraph 17 that the plaintiff has not examined the attesting witness Gopal Prasad, as such, it has raised doubt over execution of family settlement (Exhibit P/1). The learned first appellate Court has also recorded its finding that plaintiff has not been able to prove that the family settlement has been executed with the consent of all the family members, accordingly, it has dismissed the appeal by recording specific finding that the finding of the trial Court regarding issue No. 1 and 4 is legal and justified and also recorded its finding that the suit property has been purchased by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1’s father in the name of defendant No. 1 is not proved. 15. Being aggrieved with this judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred second appeal which has been admitted by this Court on substantial question of law on 01.07.2025 as aforementioned. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the finding recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the first appellate Court to the extent that the attesting witness has not been examined before the Court below treating the family settlement like a will which requires attestation is perverse, contrary to the evidence and law, in violation of law, as such it is liable to be set aside by this Court. He would further submit that once the defendant has admitted about the execution of the family settlement as such, the findings of the Court below that the signature of the defendant No. 1 has been obtained by misrepresentation is suffers from perversity, illegality. To substantiate these submissions, he has referred to the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Shyamal Kumar Roy vs. Sushil Kumar Agrawal reported in 2006 (11) SCC 331 , Moumita Poddar vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Another reported in 2010 (9) SCC 291 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 opposing the submission would submit that the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below is justified as the document has not been executed as acknowledgment of family partition but it has been made only to confer the right, title and the liability on the plaintiff which cannot be said as family settlement and the document reveals that the plaintiff claims transfer of title on the basis of settlement deed (Ex. P-1), therefore its registration is required and for want of registration the Ex. P-1 is in admissible in evidence. This finding is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court. It has also been contended that both the Courts below have concurrently given the finding that the document relates to transfer of title hence the registration of document is compulsory and the settlement deed Ex. P-1 requires compulsory registration. Hence the second appeal is liable to be rejected, as such, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are legal, justified and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. P-1 requires compulsory registration. Hence the second appeal is liable to be rejected, as such, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are legal, justified and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. To substantiate these submissions he has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari and Another vs. Buddha Jagadheeswar Rao and Others reported in 2015 (16) SCC 787 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of both the Courts below with utmost circumspection. 19. Since the entire issue moves around the Exhibit P/1 which is the family arrangement dated 16.04.1992, therefore, it is expedient for this Court to extract the Clause 2 and 5 of the family arrangement which reads as under: 20. From perusal of Clause 2 and 5, it is quite vivid that the plaintiff was responsible to pay the entire loan and the mortgage property after redemption will be held to be exclusive ownership of plaintiff who was party No. 1 and the entire liability of Sandeep Casting includes sales tax, income tax, Nager Nigam tax and all other liabilities have to be borne by the plaintiff including bank and liability payable to the market. It means the title has been transferred to the plaintiff, as such, even if the documents were exhibited without any objection but by this family settlement, he became the title holder of the suit property, therefore, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to get it registered, as such, on account of non-registration of family settlement, the family settlement lost its significance as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Khushi Ram and Others vs. Nawal Singh and Others reported in 2021 (16) SCC 279 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 32 and 33 has held as under: “32. Before we answer the above issue, it is necessary to find out what is the concept of family with regard to which a family settlement could be entered. Before we answer the above issue, it is necessary to find out what is the concept of family with regard to which a family settlement could be entered. A Three-Judge bench of this Court in Ram Charan Das v. Girjanandini Devi, 1965 (3) SCR 841 had occasion to consider a family settlement regarding the immovable property, this Court laid down that every party taking benefit under a family settlement must be related to one another in some way and have a possible claim to the property or a claim or even a semblance of a claim. Following was laid down at page 851:— “………………..In the first place once it is held that the transaction being a family settlement is not an alienation, it cannot amount to the creation of an interest. For, as the Privy Council pointed out in Mst. Hiran Bibi case [ AIR 1914 (PC) 44 ] in a family settlement each party takes a share in the property by virtue of the independent title which is admitted to that extent by the other parties. It is not necessary, as would appear from the decision in Rangasami Gounden v. Nachiaopa Gounden [LR 46 I.A. 72] that every party taking benefit under a family settlement must necessarily be shown to have, under the law, a claim to a share in the property. All that is necessary is that the parties must be related to one another in some way and have a possible claim to the property or a claim or even a semblance of a claim on some other ground as, say, affection……………… 33. A Three Judge Bench in the celebrated judgment of this Court in Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119 had elaborately considered all contours of the family settlement. This Court laid down that term “family” has to be understood in a wider sense so as to include within its fold not only close relations or legal heirs but even those persons who may have some sort of antecedent title, a semblance of a claim or even if they have a spes successionis. In paragraphs 9 and10, this Court laid down following:— “9. Before dealing with the respective contentions put forward by the parties, we would like to discuss in general the effect and value of family arrangements entered into between the parties with a view to resolving disputes once for all. In paragraphs 9 and10, this Court laid down following:— “9. Before dealing with the respective contentions put forward by the parties, we would like to discuss in general the effect and value of family arrangements entered into between the parties with a view to resolving disputes once for all. 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. The family arrangements are governed by a special equity peculiar to themselves and would be enforced if honestly made. In this connection, Kerr in his valuable treatise Kerr on Fraud at p. 364 makes the following pertinent observations regarding the nature of the family arrangement which may be extracted thus: “The principles which apply to the case of ordinary compromise between strangers do not equally apply to the case of compromises in the nature of family arrangements. 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.” The object of the arrangement is to protect the family from long-drawn litigation or perpetual strifes which mar the unity and solidarity of the family and create hatred and bad blood between the various members of the family. Today when we are striving to build up an egalitarian society and are trying for a complete reconstruction of the society, to maintain and uphold the unity and homogeneity of the family which ultimately results in the unification of the society and, therefore, of the entire country, is the prime need of the hour. A family arrangement by which the property is equitably divided between the various contenders so as to achieve an equal distribution of wealth instead of concentrating the same in the hands of a few is undoubtedly a milestone in the administration of social justice. A family arrangement by which the property is equitably divided between the various contenders so as to achieve an equal distribution of wealth instead of concentrating the same in the hands of a few is undoubtedly a milestone in the administration of social justice. That is why the term “family” has to be understood in a wider sense so as to include within its fold not only close relations or legal heirs but even those persons who may have some sort of antecedent title, a semblance of a claim or even if they have a spes successionis so that future disputes are sealed for ever and the family instead of fighting claims inter se and wasting time, money and energy on such fruitless or futile litigation is able to devote its attention to more constructive work in the larger interest of the country. The courts have, therefore, leaned in favour of upholding a family arrangement instead of disturbing the same on technical or trivial grounds. Where the courts find that the family arrangement suffers from a legal lacuna or a formal defect the rule of estoppel is pressed into service and is applied to shut out plea of the person who being a party to family arrangement seeks to unsettle a settled dispute and claims to revoke the family arrangement under which he has himself enjoyed some material benefits. The law in England on this point is almost the same. In Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 17, Third Edition, at pp. 215-216, the following apt observations regarding the essentials of the family settlement and the principles governing the existence of the same are made: “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 usual to embody or to effectuate the agreement in a deed to which the term “family arrangement” is applied. Family arrangements are governed by principles which are not applicable to dealings between strangers. The agreement may be implied from a long course of dealing, but it is more usual to embody or to effectuate the agreement in a deed to which the term “family arrangement” is applied. Family arrangements are governed by principles which are not applicable to dealings between strangers. The court, when deciding the rights of parties under family arrangements or claims to upset such arrangements, considers what in the broadest view of the matter is most for the interest of families, and has regard to considerations which, in dealing with transactions between persons not members of the same family, would not be taken into account. Matters which would be fatal to the validity of similar transactions between strangers are not objections to the binding effect of family arrangements.” 10. In other words to put the binding effect and the essentials of a family settlement in a concretised form, the matter may be reduced into the form of the following propositions: “(1) 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; (2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence; (3) The family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary; (4) 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. 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; (5) 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 the family arrangement will be upheld and the courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same; (6) Even if 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.” 21. From the contents of family arrangement, it is quite vivid that by the Clause 2 and 5 the suit property is intended to be transferred in favour of the plaintiff and the right of defendant is deemed to have been waived off which is nothing but it is relinquishment of right in respect of immovable property, as such, it is compulsory registrable document and if the same is not registered it becomes inadmissible document as envisaged under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, hence the Exhibit P/1 will definitely fall within the ambit of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 and are compulsory registrable document and the same are inadmissible in evidence for proving the title of the plaintiff. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari and Another vs. Buddha Jagadheeswar Rao and Others reported in 2015 (16) SCC 787 has held in paragraph 15 as under: “15. It is well settled that the nomenclature given to the document is not decisive factor but the nature and substance of the transaction has to be determined with reference to the terms of the documents and that the admissibility of a document is entirely dependent upon the recitals contained in that document but not on the basis of the pleadings set up by the party who seeks to introduce the document in question. A thorough reading of both Exts. B-21 and B-22 makes it very clear that there is relinquishment of right in respect of immovable property through a document which is compulsorily registrable document and if the same is not registered, it becomes an inadmissible document as envisaged under Section 49 of the Registration Act. Hence, Exts. A thorough reading of both Exts. B-21 and B-22 makes it very clear that there is relinquishment of right in respect of immovable property through a document which is compulsorily registrable document and if the same is not registered, it becomes an inadmissible document as envisaged under Section 49 of the Registration Act. Hence, Exts. B-21 and B-22 are the documents which squarely fall within the ambit of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and hence are compulsorily registrable documents and the same are inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the factum of partition between the parties. We are of the considered opinion that Exts. B-21 and B-22 are not admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving primary purpose of partition.” 22. So far as attestation is concerned, both the Courts below have raised doubt by not examining the attesting witness on the count that the defendant No. 1 has specifically stated in his evidence that with regard to business activities the stamps were signed, as such it is essential for the plaintiff to examine the witness who has attested the same and due to non-examination of the attesting witness though available has rightly drawn adverse inference against the plaintiff as he could have thrown the light on the issue very well. The learned Courts below have rightly drawn inference against the plaintiff by not examining the attesting witness. The said findings and reasoning given by both the Courts below are in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chowdamma (D) by LR and Another Versus Venkatappa (D) by LRs and Another in Civil Appeal No. 11330 of 2011 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 53, 54, 55 & 56 has held as under: “53. This inference is inescapable. This is not a case of medical inability but of deliberate silence. In civil proceedings, particularly where the facts lie exclusively within the personal knowledge of the party, the refusal to enter the witness box carries grave evidentiary consequences. 54 . This principle is neither novel nor uncertain. This Court in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and Anr. ( (1999) 3 SCC 573 ) held thus: “17. In civil proceedings, particularly where the facts lie exclusively within the personal knowledge of the party, the refusal to enter the witness box carries grave evidentiary consequences. 54 . This principle is neither novel nor uncertain. This Court in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and Anr. ( (1999) 3 SCC 573 ) held thus: “17. Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness- box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct …. ” 55 . The present case is a compelling invocation of the above principle. Defendant No.1, though physically present in the Court during the trial, abstained from stepping into the witness box to rebut the plaintiffs’ assertions — assertions that strike at the very core of the dispute. In the absence of cogent medical evidence to support her alleged incapacity, her abstention from the witness box constitutes deliberate circumvention of the evidentiary burden resting upon her. 56 . In the present factual matrix, the adverse presumption under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act is inevitable.” 23. The learned both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence, material and tenure of the Family Arrangement (Exhibit P/1) which is clearly intended to transfer the title of the suit property requires compulsory registration and even if it is exhibited then also it cannot be admissible in evidence as merely exhibition of document does not proof of contents or truth, it only identifies its execution and facts must still be proven through proper oral or other evidence like witness. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narbada Devi Gupta vs Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and Another reported in 2003 (8) SCC 745 has held in paragraph 16 as under: “16. Reliance is heavily placed on behalf of the appellant on the case of Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd., (supra), The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence that is by the 'evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue'. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence that is by the 'evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue'. The situation is, however, different where the documents are produced, they are admitted by the opposite party, signatures on them are also admitted and they are marked thereafter as exhibits by the court. We find no force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that as the mark of exhibits has been put on the back portions of the rent receipts near the place where the admitted signatures of the plaintiff appear, the rent receipts as a whole cannot be treated to have been exhibited as an admitted documents” 24. Thus, the learned both the Courts below have rightly recorded their findings that since the family settlement has not been registered and from the contents of the family settlement it is quite clear that the suit property is intended to be transferred and amounting to relinquishment of other family members right, as such, it requires compulsory registration. Thus, the substantial question of law deserves to be answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant No. 1. 25. It is well settled legal position of law that the jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the findings of fact on the ground that findings are erroneous, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be. The findings of fact will also include the findings on the basis of documentary evidence. The jurisdiction to interfere in the second appeal is only where there is an error in law or procedure and not merely an error on a question of fact. In view of the above preposition of law it is quite vivid that this Court could not interfere with the findings of fact recorded after appreciation of evidence merely because this Court thought that another view would be a better view. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi, reported in (2016) 3 SCC, Pakeerappa Rai v. Seethamma Hengsu , reported in (2001) 9 SCC 521 , Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh , reported in (2019) 17 SCC 71 , Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki , reported in (2007) 1 SCC 546 78 have examined this scope of interference by the High Court in the Second Appeal. 26. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, considering the law on the subject, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below does not warrant interference. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. No order as to costs. 27. A decree be drawn up accordingly.