As per case facts, the dispute concerns agricultural land owned by Bhara. His daughters, Smt. Parbati and Smt. Dhupli, claimed ownership by natural succession and a Will, challenging a 1978 ... decree in favor of Satbir and Shamsher, alleging fraud and non-registration. Satbir and Shamsher, claiming to be Bhara's grandsons, asserted the 1978 decree was a valid family settlement. The Trial Court upheld the daughters' claim, finding them owners and the 1978 decree void due to lack of registration. The First Appellate Court, however, considered the 1978 decree binding as a family settlement not requiring registration, reversing the Trial Court. The appeal to the High Court challenges this decision. The question arose whether the decree dated 25.10.1978 required compulsory registration under law. Finally, the High Court held that the 1978 decree was not a bona fide family arrangement but a device to create new rights for strangers, thus requiring compulsory registration. Its non-registration rendered it legally ineffective, and therefore, the Trial Court's judgment was restored, allowing the appeals of Parbati and Dhupli.