- (1.)This revision petition is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Nizamabad in L.R.A. No. 14 of 1977. The first petitioner is the son of the second petitioner and they are respectively the declarants in C.C. No. 324/NZB/75 and C.C. No. 325 /NZB/75 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Nizamabad.
(2.)The Appellate Tribunal determined the land liable to be surrendered by each of them at 0.6869 standard holding. One Ramireddy had two sons Mohana Reddy, the second petitioner herein, and Narasa Reddy who predeceased Ramireddy, over 37 years ago. Raj Narsavva is the widow of Narasa Reddy. It is the case of the petitioner that in a settlement arrived at between the members of the family, Ac. 16-00 of land covered by Survey Nos. 296 and 299 of Nallavalli village and Survey Nos. 333, 242, 240, 241 and 308 of Gouraram village were given towards the maintenance of Raj Narsawa and a settlement deed Exhibit A-38, dated 10th April, 1952 was executed to record the family settlrment. The petitioners claim that these extents are in the enjoyment of Raj Narsavva and being managed by the petitioners as she is a widow. She has acquired absolute right therein under section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The said extents cannot be computed in the holding of the petitioners. Both the Tribunals below held against the petitioners. The Appellate Tribunal observed that this document requires registration and stamp and as such it was inadmisible in evidence. Inasmuch as the objection as to the document being unstamped was not taken before the primary Tribunal and was marked as an exhibit, that it was inadmissible in evidence could not be raised at the appellate stage. But that document cannot be acted upon because it is not registered, could be raised and requires to be considered. A reading of that the document however shows that it is a record of a past transaction by the second petitioner. It is stated therein that he had given these items of property to Raj Narsavva towards her maintenance as per the directions of hi? father and that he had put her in possession of the properties. It is only a declaration by him that he does not have any subsisting right therein. The lands are not conveyed to her under that document. Tn order that a transaction may be a family settlement, it is not mandatory hat the parties to it must have some right therein. Only because the right claimed by one is not admitted by the other, the necessity for a family settlement arises. As laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Charan v. Girja Nandini, the word 'family' in the context is not to be understood in a narrow sense of being a group of persons who are recognised in law as haying a right of succession or having a claim to a share in the property in dispute. In that context, the Supreme Court referred to the Privy Council's case Ramgouda v. Annagouda, whereof the three parties to the settlement of a dispute concerning the property of a deceased person one was his widow, the other her brother and the third her son-in- law and observed -
" The two latter could not, under the Hindu Law, be regarded as the heirs of the deceased. Yet, bearing in mind their near relationship to the widow the settlement of the disoute was very properly regarded as a settlement of family dispute. The consideration for such a settlement, if one may put in that way, is the expectation that such a settlement will result in establishing or ensuring amity and goodwill amongst persons bearing relationship with one another. That consideration having passed by each of the disputants the settlement consisting of recognition of the right asserted by each other cannot be permitted to be impeached thereafter."
The Supreme Court further held that the trans action in question is a family settlement entered into by the parties bona fide for the purpose of putting an end to the dispute among family members. The Supreme Court further proceeded to consider- " Could it be said that this amounts to a transfer of or creation of an interest in proprrty?" and held that -
" A compromise by way of family settlement is in no sense an alienation by a limited owner of family property... .once it is held that the transaction being a family settlement is not an alienation, it cannot amount to the creation of an interest...."
It also observed-
" It is not necessary......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, afiection."

(3.)Having regard to the above Exhibit A-38 which is a record of a past transaction, must be held to be a family settlement and that does not require registration. The view of the Appellate Tribunal that Exhibit A-38 requires registration and that it cannot be treated as family settlement, cannot be sustained. The only question that has now to be considered is whether the family settlement made by the petitioners is true?